Judge Rules Against Home Schooling Mom
Offline A judge in North Raleigh has ruled that a mother must stop home schooling her children and send them to public school. An organized group of conservative Christians is calling for him to be removed from the case. (We all know, of course, that judges are only fair if they rule the way we want them to. Otherwise, they're... what's that called? Activist judges.) In preliminary statements, the judge made references to the childrens' need to have exposure to peers. Alan Keyes has weighed in on this notion: "If his idea of socialization includes the need to challenge the Christian ideas their mother has taught them, then he not only interferes with her natural right to raise up her children, he tramples on one of the most important elements of the free exercise of religion." Before I make another point, I must comment on this emotionally appealing (and ultimately empty) statement. The judge has not ruled that the mother may not teach her children the religion of her own choosing. He has ruled that she must allow her children to be exposed to other teachings as well. Furthermore, Mr. Keyes has used a buzzword that sounds nice but doesn't carry much weight -- natural. Astute readers will recognize that "natural" doesn't really mean anything at all. If it happens in the universe, it is a natural occurrence. What Keyes is undoubtedly saying is that mothers have an inherent legal right, or perhaps a God given right to raise their children. Of course, the United States Constitution doesn't mention God given rights, so that shouldn't be an issue. (Don't believe me? Go HERE and search for "God".) As far as legal rights go, mothers also have an obligation to raise their children in ways that are not abusive, negligent, or otherwise unduly harmful. There is a whole department of the government devoted to child welfare, and it often forcibly removes children from their mothers, nullifying their "natural right" to raise their children. In case you're wondering, the woman is a member of the Sound Doctrine Church. Feel free to browse around the site. It's just another fundamentalist literalist church that mainline denominations would dismiss as cultish. (In fact, they do.) The mother has suggested that her children are doing fine in their studies, and that the husband is only bringing up the homeschooling to take emphasis away from his adultery. This seems odd to me, since he admitted the adultery, apparently without objection. Oh, and the grandfather of the children has filed an affadavit requesting that the mother be evaluated for mental competency, as he feels her involvement with the church has caused her potential mental damage.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Wow, I can hardly believe it but amongst the steaming pile of bullshit there was a voice of reason.
And that's just it, the implications are purely and simply that when mum and dad can't agree on how to raise the children, family court can decide in favour of the side who presents the most convincing argument for their wishes. It's not a ruling against home schooling, and despite that we might want it to be, it's not exactly a ruling against cultish child brainwashing either, unfortunately. It's a straightforward case of a family court deciding that one parent presented more (or more compelling) material to the bench than the other.
As for Alan Keyes' vapid cry of foul, he's missed the point by such a wide margin it's astounding. It wasn't the judge who took mum to court to interfere with her choices of upbringing, it was the children's father, and he has every right to do that; if she thinks there are mitigating circumstances to prove otherwise then it's up to her to present them to the court (adultery doesn't count). Keyes seems to be trying to say that mum's preferences are inalieble, even at the expense of dad's and somehow this is what family court should be primarily upholding - but this is just a micro-thin veil for what is fairly obviously his real issue: wanting the US courts to primarily and arbitrarily uphold whatever values favour the christian agenda on the day (on this day it was mum's values).
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Well spoken on all counts, Eloise.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yea I'm pretty sure normal homeschooling has nothing to worry about with these religious nut jobs and their divorce cases.
nutjob reason for homeschooling: to keep the child brainwashed and ignorant.
good reason for homeschooling: an option for a different learning environment when other options aren't preferred or possible.
ciarin.com
Awesome!
Just a few hundred thousand more to go....
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
This, of course, comes from the people who hold that gay marriage will pevert traditional family values...
=
I used to homeschool my kids, and while we were religious at the time, the simple reason is that the schools here sucked. So, when one of the local school districts opened up a charter school which was supposed to be a lot more free form and attentive to the kids on an individual basis, we enrolled our kids in it.
It's a joke. If it weren't for the fact that my kids thrive with the increased number of kids they get to know, I'd have already flipped that school the bird. We're evaluating the districts to see who might be the best of a bad set of choices.
Oh, did I mention that we're in Kansas? Some would say I'm a fool for even trusting them with lunch, let alone regular classes.
Of course, I can remember having school rallies in Florida where the guest speaker was a local preacher, and they handed out those little green pocket bibles. At least it's not that bad. Yet.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
The United States Constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either. Don't believe me? Go HERE and search for "privacy." The United States Constitution doesn't mention a right to abortion, contraceptives, private school access. Don't believe me? Go HERE and search for "abortion," "contraceptives," "private school access." Furthermore, the United States Constitution doesn't say Congress CAN regulate libel, slander, obscenity, fighting words, commercial speech, or solicitation. But they can.
Without commenting on the correctness of finding any of these states' rights or individual rights', my point is merely that the United States Constitution is read, many times, as encompassing things it doesn't explicitly state.
As for the concept of "natural right," I believe you need look no further than the due process clause. IMO, much, if not all, of its substance is derived from looking into the history of the words usage in common law, as well as other places; and, like it or not, the english common law (and western historical understanding of rights) are saturated with "natural right" conceptions.
Whether or not you view rights as merely state created or naturally given, I think a strong argument exists that the state created rights (embodied by the United States Constitution) were premised upon an understanding of a "natural right"--whatever that phrase may mean.
I don't mean to get into much an argument over this, because it doesn't really matter all that much to me, merely stating another perspective.
With regard to the actual content of the story, while I might tend to agree with Elise that this is a simple custody case, one possible problem I perceive:
IF the only reason the judge decided to move the kids to a public school was that he thought the secular education was "better" than the religious education because of the religious content, then that would be an improper basis; as improper as would be a finding that a democrat custodial parent would be better than an republican one because of the political viewpoint.
If such was the case, then it would be an infringement upon her free exercise rights (IMO).
((Man.. I gotta stop being so argumentative. Sorry Hamby. It's late here.. I'll try and make this the last time I'll be all contrarian and stuff)).
First, I'm not sure comparing theism and atheism is similar to comparing being a democrat or republican. If we really need to nitpick that point, fine, but I think that was a bit of hyperbole, I hope?
If the mother was muslim and constantly brainwashed her kid every day that they should kill the infidels for the glory of Allah, do you think the judge should be able to determine (with the help of pscyhologists) that the environment was mentally unhealthy for learning?
I'm personally against religious teaching (especially, especially at a young age since the child is so vulnerable to brainwashing) at all, but as it currently stands it's allowed to be done. I imagine that statement probably raised your eyebrows a bit, so allow me to demonstrate the problem:
If you're not aware, there is a denomination of Christians called Christian Scientists. Many/most of them believe in healing through faith to the exclusion of medicine. Edit: Read http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm if you'd like to see what I'm talking about. /edit
If a 40 year old man is a Christian Scientist and gets an easily treatable disease that he will die from if left untreated, and he refuses treatment, he is effectively committing suicide. At this point you might claim that God could heal him. I hope you won't, as the evidence for that occuring is...severely lacking. So, the first question is: should he be allowed to refuse treatment and die?
Most people will answer yes. He's an adult who can make his own decisions on what to do with his life and he can control his own body, or something similar.
If that 40 year old man has a 5 year old boy who gets sick from an easily treatable ailment that will kill him if left untreated, should the father be able to deny medial aid for his son? He is, in a sense, killing his son.
Most people will answer no to the second question, that the state can interfere because it is a child and they will also add that the father is committing child abuse.
Now we come to an interesting question: should the father be allowed to brainwash the son that refusing medicine is in accordance with God's will? Keep in mind the ideas drilled into him at this age will stick with him far more than later ideas. If you say yes, then let's look at something 13 years down the road. The 5 year old is now an 18 year old and is sick again, but now he's an "adult." If he's been brainwashed for 90% of his life that refusing medicine is part of God's will and taking medicine will damn him or something similar, how much of his mindset is his fault? Do you say it is completely the 18 year old's fault for refusing medicine, regardless of the brainwashing and indoctrination that he has been subjected to?
If you say it's not entirely his fault, then I imagine you'd agree that there is a deep flaw in the current system in circumstances like these.
If you say it is entirely his fault, consider the pattern we've laid down:
40 year old refusing treatment: Okay, but stupid.
40 year old refusing treatment for son: Not okay, child abuse.
40 year old teaching son to refuse treatment: Okay.
18 year old refusing treatment: Okay, but stupid.
Now what does that imply? It implies that you think the son *should* learn and accept treatment despite a lifetime of being brainwashed not to. It implies there is indeed something very wrong in that example. So where do you intervene?
Do you tell the 40 year old he has to take treatment? Do you tell the 40 year old he can't teach his child to refuse medicine? Do you tell the 18 year old he has to take treatment? Where do you interfere to break the cycle?
I think the judge erred on a legal technicality.
He should have handed it off on children and youth services based on the husbands complaints for further investigation
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.