Judging Amanda

We have homeschooled all three of our boys and it would be horrible if the government took that away from us. Having said that, I don't know why evangelicals are so surprised. You've taken it upon yourselves to interfere in government for over a decade. Well, it's a two-way street.

Hail to the court. I hope higher courts uphold its ruling. Would evangelicals be complaining if the mother was a "rigid" atheist? One of the responsibilities of educators is to produce citizens capable of critical thinking. If exposed to only one narrow world view, a child really doesn't have a chance to develop the skills to differentiate wise from unwise, or if you will, good from evil.

I home-schooled my own children for a few years when we lived in an area where the schools were substandard, but I made sure they had ample opportunities to interact with other children with different views. When they wanted to go to some fairly weird churches with some of the other kids, I let them go, with the caveat that the keep an open mind & try to evaluate what they were hearing. This exposed them to ideas I would never have espoused, & it gave them an opportunity to make their own decisions about the value & utility of those ideas.

Good luck to Amanda.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

If the mother has full custody then the court may have overstepped. If the father has any custodial rights then his opinion has to be taken into account. As an evidence based person I feel badly that this child has been exposed to the myths of religion so as to exclude her father. On the other had since all of the god-based mythologies have no basis in fact I feel one is as bad(or as good) as the next one as a belief.

I am not sure whether I agree with the decision.

However, I would emphasize the extent to which this decision is about the court's responsibility to ensure that the mother's actions do not create interference in the relationship between the father and the child.

This is not simply a court deciding a child is too religiously conservative for her own good and therefore must go to public school, but an attempt to remedy the fision between father and daughter.

It's more interesting to spin this case as something it isn't.

To answer this question, we need to look at why government intervention in education is justifiable at all. Why are kids forced to get an education? What if my personal belief is that my kids should not be taught to read or do math? Why is the gov't. allowed to intervene and force me to either send my kids to school or teach them reading/math/history/science myself? The reason is that the government's job is to protect the rights of all citizens, and my kids are citizens with rights. They have the right to be fully functioning and participating citizens in this democracy, and that requires literacy, the ability to do basic math, an understanding of science, etc. By the way, that's also why I'm not allowed to beat my kids, neglect their care, etc. Some people still seem to believe that parents have full and unquestionable rights over their children, but that simply isn't true. Children must be protected by the government.

So in the religious case, the question is whether the child's right to become a fully functioning participant in this society is being protected. In some cases of home schooling, this right isn't being protected and the gov't needs to step in and defend this child-citizen. I teach at a university in a conservative state, and I see lots of homeschooled kids. Most of them do fine, but a significant minority of them come to college with no knowledge of what evolution is, only knowing that it's "evil" and they don't want to know anything more about it. It's extremely difficult for them to understand basic biology and psychology without an understanding of evolution. Much worse, one of the primary goals of our university is teaching critical thinking, and many of these students firmly believe that faith is opposed to reason, and that being asked to reason about morality, politics, religion, and culture, is wrong. It should all be a matter of faith, and there should be no debate about it. This is a very harmful belief for them to have, because now they cannot evaluate arguments and think for themselves; they can only take the word of their religious leaders as gospel. I think the government should step in and force childhood education to include basic training in critical thinking, respect for diversity, and an understanding of evolution.

I am opposed to home schooling, I think it is a contributing factor to the increasing level of intolerance and vitriol in our nation. While the study of academic subjects is the primary reason for going to school; a secondary and important reason is to learn to interact with others - and that includes others who are of a different races and backgrounds from yours and who might hold different views of the world.

As a product of a big city public school system that was a major part of my education and one that I value to this day. Children need to learn to get along, not just with those who agree with them, but with everyone.

It doesn't mean giving up your value system, but it does allow you the opportunity to get to understand where other people are coming from and that's a very important life skill. Rather than being afraid of sending their daughter to public schools; they should view it as a test of the values they've given her, if they are good values, she will ultimately be stronger.

I disagree with the commenter who said this is about custodial rights. Even if the mother has full physical custody of the child that doesn't give her the right to turn the child against the father, even for her religious beliefs.

The comment from the teacher about the intellectual unpreparedness of a significant proportion of home-schooled kids is very telling. I have personally seen people home-schooling their children on the basis of their own rather weak high-school education, and many of the shildren are extremely ignorant, in my view. They receive a narrow curriculum with little enrichment or interaction with people with a greater education or a different understanding. Their parents are often quite confident in their own teaching abilities--with no justification whatsoever.
When I compare these children's intellectual lives with what I was exposed to (at a half-decent public school) I feel deeply sad for them. At a time when teachers in Arkansas (and probably other states, too) are not even allowed to say the word evolution in the classroom, or tell students how old rocks are (this is true--Google it yourself), we are facing a portion of our culture which is pretty much falling off the wagon, educationally speaking. These corrupt schools produce ignorant citizens unable to differentiate between demagoguery and real political discourse, and it makes me think that both the right-wing home-schoolers and the Republican party in general hate learning and education as a dangerous influence. Ironic to have that attitude in a major political party during an age in which science is so important.

I wouldn't agree with David Waters' cause, but again the courts should be blind as to political views, as in the Amanda case. However, Evangelicals in the South would not bat a tear if the judge were Evangelical and Amanda was of any other belief. So there is some hypocrisy in Waters' commentary.

I homeschooled two of my three children. They all turned out just fine, so the poster at 9:56 a.m. need not worry. Our family didn't add to the level of vitriol, but it certainly sounds like you've done some brewing...opposing homeschooling on the basis of your belief (and where is this documented by the way) that homeschoolers are more inclined to be unable to interact w/people of different beliefs or races. Unbelievable. I don't know what types of homeschoolers you've been around but you need to get out more.
Our third child went to public school her entire life, including four years at a public university, and guess what? She has more strongly held religious beliefs than the two that were home schooled. She's more outspoken about them too. The court needs to let families, or custodial parents, make the decisions for their children and try to give parents (and their kids) a little credit.
Some of the most intolerant people I know are those who dislike people of faith. The double standard of intolerance is astonishing.

Does it matter? The child will grow up with fanatics regardless. Eventually, she will go out into the real world where these beliefs will be shattered. The cost to individual liberty seems too high here. As long as she can read, write, do arithmetic and so on, I would not interfere. When her rebellion comes, as it inevitably will, she will adjust.

Tough call, agreed. The Court would have done better to focus less on the religious aspects, and more on the narrowness of a child growing up with exposure to only one viewpoint, regardless of what that viewpoint may be.

It is not a religious thing; it is a parent thing. The two parents don't agree. They both have a say. The "middle ground" is fair, but obviously not to the one parent that lost total control. The mother and the daughter are not being made to change their religious instruction or beliefs one whit. The wishes of the father are equal to the mother, at least somewhat. Not an issue except to the mother and the community that views public schools as sodom and gomorrah. I will be interested to see what Amanda has to say after the end of the school year. Has she made new friends? Have her beliefs changed at all?

I would really like to know what criteria is demanded of parents who homeschool their children. Do they have to have teaching degrees or any degrees at all? In how many subjects must they be proficient? Are they subject to yearly eductional updates? Do they neglect to teach subjects in which they disapprove? As far as I've read, any idiot parent can homeschool his child. And in many cases the idiot parent is also a religious fanatic who spends much time brainwashing the child with fallacious, unfounded religious beliefs. This is criminal; this is child abuse. Homeschooling is a precarious learning environment at best and one that is often socially crippling. It's one thing if "homeschooling" was in addition to real schooling. What kind of child wants to spend 24 hours with his parents? Despite some success stories, it seems like a breeding ground for social awkwardness and possibly more upsetting behavior. Fortunately, this girl Amanda will be able to get away from her wacko mother and learn what the world is really about.

Homeschooling should not be allowed. Period. While a few manage to do it without creating narrow minded kids who lack critical analysis skills, most do it so they can brainwash their kids. This is a non-physical form of abuse. Just as we don't allow parents to lock up children in a closet, we shouldn't allow parents to lock up kids' brains, especially in a mindset from the middle ages.

I would encourage those posting to fully read the opinion - it is the model of moderation. After reading the testimony I find it amazing that anyone would disagree with the father's contentions and the resulting decision.

Leaving aside my skepticism as to the ability of religiously indoctrinated home-schooled children to function in a world where many people have different perspectives and bases of knowledge, this is a case in which the girl's father wants her to get exposure to other people, to (hopefully) critical thinking skills, and to knowledge of which she would be deprived by her mother, and the girl's mother wants to have the sole opportunity of providing "education" to her child, who is only ten years old.

The Alliance Defense Fund's arguments are, typically, garbage. Fathers, too, have constitutionally protected rights to make decisions as to the upbringing of their children, as it surely would have argued had the roles been reversed.

I agree with the court that the girl loses nothing by having the opportunity to learn that it is not her mother alone who knows things. Moreover, regardless of the relationships between the father and mother, it is definitely a form of child abuse for the mother to turn the daughter against her father, which clearly has happened.

If the mother has sole custody then the ruling is intollerable. As long as home schooling is legal moonbat religionists will have a Constitutional right to foul their child's mind

Welcome to the Washington Post's Attack "On Faith." I find it interesting that any religious belief is increasingly labeled as "rigid" or "intolerant" these days. I remember when people were expected to weigh the evidence and come to their own conclusion. I have read brilliant writers such as Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and I have come to believe strongly in the Christian faith. Am I rigid for seeking answers and ultimately coming to believe in something?

P.S. I'm always curious as to how how intellectually "open" contemporary atheists truly are.

I am totally blown away by these comments. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The constitution was founded to protect the common citizen (NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PERSON RELIGEOUS BELIEFS) from intrusion from government. The gov is set up for certain purposes, like managing the military in order to keep us safe, NOT TO TELL US HOW TO RAISE OUR CHILDREN! It doesn't matter if we are atheist or wicken or catholic or jewish or baptist we have every right in the world to raise our children that way. It is so scarey to see that we have been so brainwashed as to believe that it is perfectly fine for big brother to step in and take the minds of our children from us. HORRIFYING!

I do a lot of physical training for home schooled kids, and I find that contrary to my view points before hand, they are not "odd", "weird", "dogmatic" or anything of the sort.

And so while I do not home-school my kids, I have nothing but respect for the parents and kids who do.

It's troubling to see so many people casting stones and drawing conclusions without a *CLUE* about the reality of the situation.

I am not sure I understand the rhetorical question, "Would the court have ruled for Amanda's father if Amanda's mother was an open-minded, tolerant believer that God loves everyone and everyone goes to heaven?"

If that were true, it seems certain the father would never have filed suit.

Home schooling, yes, as long as the children pass all the state and local tests required of public and parochial school children.

This question is easy to answer. Would the courts decide that a child who was home schooled needed to attend public school to learn tolerance of others if the reason was anything other than religion?

What if the mother was teaching the child to be intolerant of someone because of their skin color? What about if the intolerance was due to hair color? What clothes are worn? Language spoken?

The world is becoming a smaller place with all the technological advances in communication. I believe that it is necessary to learn tolerance of others to become a good citizen of the world. Without this tolerance how easy will it be for ANYONE to control this child once she steps out of her mother's house (job or post-secondary education) by playing on her fears. The world has already seen too much violence caused by people's fears.

Let me see if I clearly understand:

Engaging in behavior that can only be described as Evil, mommy thoroughly indoctrinates her daughter to the point of view that daddy must not really love her because if he did he'd be christian enough not to go to hell. As part of that indoctrination, mommy carefully controls the people to whom her daughter has routine access.

When daddy says, "Whoa, that's way out of line," the court does not strip mommy of her custody. Instead, it exercises the supreme restraint of merely granting dad's request that his daughter attend public school so that she might have some prayer of being exposed to enough alternate viewpoints to be able to make up her own mind.

And Dave Waters thinks the court went -too far-?

"It is so scarey to see that we have been so brainwashed as to believe that it is perfectly fine for big brother to step in and take the minds of our children from us. HORRIFYING!"

Again, please take the time to READ the opinion.

'Big brother' didn't step in on this issue. The parents are divorced. The divorce agreement grants that BOTH PARENTS shall have input on major decisions, of which BOTH PARENTS agree this qualifies. In the case where the parents are not able to reach agreement, BOTH PARENTS have agreed to seek outside mediation - specifically a family court judge.

The state didn't seek to be involved - the parents specifically requested the state to settle this dispute.

The state sought input from various adults interacting with this 10-year-old. The state specifically did not comment or evaluate the validity of the religious beliefs.

The father wanted his daughter to have the social experience of a public school. The mother did not. After reviewing all of the evidence, the judge agreed with the father. I would submit that any reasonable person reading the review of the evidence would likely agree.

"Nonetheless, reasoned the court, 'it would be remarkable if a ten-year-old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view.'"

That's an incredible statement. Why is it the business of the Court or of the State to force a child or a family to "consider" changing their religious beliefs? The answer is that it's none of their business.

How does it reflect so-called conservative family values to turn a child against her father, whose only "crime" is holding different religious beliefs? What happened to "a child needs a mother and a father," a slogan so strong in the gay marriage debate but absent here?

Both parents get to decide on their child's education.

And regarding ...

>But should any court determine which religious beliefs are emotionally, psychologically or socially healthy for a child?

Definitely! Dogmatic religious indoctrination of children is child abuse. The more dogmatic it is, the more abusive it is. The court has as much responsibility to prevent it as it has to prevent other mental and physical abuses.

"Am I rigid for seeking answers and ultimately coming to believe in something?"

Not necessarily.

But a 10-year-old who meets with a counselor, challenges her faith, gives her biblical quotes to study and discuss at the next session and becomes visibly upset when the counselor does not do so may be a bit rigid.

Again, read the actual testimony.

"That's an incredible statement. Why is it the business of the Court or of the State to force a child or a family to "consider" changing their religious beliefs? The answer is that it's none of their business."

Again, please *read* the testimony in its entirety. The court specifically states that is imposes no restrictions on the mother providing religious instruction. The quote in question is a rebuttal to the mother's assertion that the 10-year-old daughter has independently considered and chosen to follow the mother's religious beliefs.

I had seen headlines about this story and wondered how in the world a court was involved. Turns out it's a divorce court ruling where the parties had agreed to let the court decide whether she should be home schooled. Hardly an intrusion into basic family values. Rather, a difficult call in which the father had an equal interest with the mother.

Everyone misses the point. This is a decision in favor of a parent whose wishes have been ignored. We don't know what the divorce settlement was, who has parental rights over Amanda. Was the judge just giving the father his rights back?

We see children all the time reared in ways we disapprove of, ways which are destructive. We want to intervene but cannot and have no right to do so. A court may in certain cases have the right to do so. Leave it to the lawyers and judges -- not to public prejudice one way or another.

"This is America and children are free to believe exactly as their parents do, at least until they turn 13."

In other words, freedom is submission. How Orwellian!

The Volokh Conspiracy blog discussed this decision a couple of weeks ago. See http://volokh.com/posts/1251405593.shtml

It seems to me that the judge went a little too far in his opinion, but I think that the bottom-line result was right. The father has an equal say here, and the mother was turning (or had turned) Amanda against him. No other outcome would have preserved his rights.

So the parents had joint decision making as to Amanda's education, and Amanda's father and counselor agreed exposure to other children her age would be good for her. The court went (with noted reluctance for the interference) with that opinion and took her out of home school.

I don't get the uproar here. These are the kind of tough decisions that get made every day after divorces.

When I first read this story I was outraged. How can the government decide, over a parent's wishes, what she will learn?

But it wasn't over the parent's wishes, was it? Amanda's father has a say in her life too. Ravitchn is right. The courts simply recognized the rights of the father.

How many of you have complained that father's are too often cut out of their children's lives after divorce? In this case the court noted the education given by the mother was impacting Amanda's relationship with her father. In other words, the mother is using the cover of religious beliefs to deny her ex-husband a relationship with his own daughter.

Sadly, since the mother cannot bring herself to compromise, the courts must
step in.

This is dilemma worthy of King Solomon. Fortunately the judge didn't ask them to split Amanda physically in half.

Education is a necessity, religion is a luxury.

"Having said that, I don't know why evangelicals are so surprised. You've taken it upon yourselves to interfere in government for over a decade. Well, it's a two-way street."

So I guess you are not allowed to participate in citizen government if you are an evangelical?

Your bigotry makes me sad.

The girl is 10 years old, her mother has interfered with the relationship between her and her father, and it is definitely time for a diversity of views to enlighten the girl. If the mother had ANY faith in her child, she would not protest. The girl is old enough to start doing her own thinking.

I think the court "missed the boat" on its decision to send Amanda to public school full time. It is clear from the ruling that the child is meeting academic requirements with her home schooling curriculum. The ruling also states that she is attending some public school classes to supplement and fulfill all her educational requirements.

The real issue, in my view, is not religion, but the relationship with her father, who, as Mr. Waters points out, divorced Amanda's mother shortly after Amanda's birth. It is obvious that, since her mother is the primary caregiver, Amanda has a tight bond with her mother, and has coping issues when she visits her father, who is not a religious individual.

I'm no attorney, but I would have ordered family counseling for both the father and his daughter, under terms agreeable to the mother, that would address dynamics underlying their friction. I think that Amanda's assertion that religion is the wedge between her and her father is not the trigger, only a symptom of their current incompatibility.

As for the court, the statements that Amanda needs to broaden her outlook due to the so-called rigid religious influence of her mother had no place in the ruling.

I say this as a person who does not belong to any particular religious group, and who does not have the strong faith that Amanda and her mother appear to possess.

I, too, think a goal of education is to promote critical thinking. Where is the evidence that public education or home-schooled education promotes critical thinking? Also, I have seen home-schooled students whoo are mature, reasoning, well-read. Same with public-school kids. And I've seen narrow-minded bigotry from both.
Conclusion: if the mother has sole custody, the court is wrong. If there is shared custody, then the two parents have to agree on education, or else face mandatory mediation.

"Conclusion: if the mother has sole custody, the court is wrong. If there is shared custody, then the two parents have to agree on education, or else face mandatory mediation."

It amazes me the number of people willing to opine without actually reading the decision which is helpfully linked at the beginning of the article.

The parents have shared custody. They have agreed to seek mediation when they can't reach agreement. They sought that mediation in this case. The counselor recommended public school. They judge agreed.

"I'm no attorney, but I would have ordered family counseling for both the father and his daughter, under terms agreeable to the mother, that would address dynamics underlying their friction."

I'm guessing you missed the paragraph on Page 4 that started 'Amanda was enrolled with a counselor...'

What strikes me about reactions to this case is how the public is so misinformed about the legal details of family and other types of law.
At least in CA, there are 2 types of custody, physical (who the kid lives with) and legal (decision making power over educational, religious and medical issues). According to what I've read on here, on legal blogs etc., the mom had sole physical (kid only lives with her), but joint physical with the father (they shared decision-making power). In such a case when both parents disagreed about an educational and religious issue, it is perfectly legal and legitimate for the courts to step in and make a decisions for the parents. I don't really see it any differently from a judge's decision to set custody times for the parents when such an issue is contentious.
As a member of the JusticeCorps, an AmeriCorps program, I spent a summer helping self-represented litigants in family law cases at a legal resource center, and what really amazed me was how little people knew about the law. Whether they had misconceptions about their divorce (it's not just one paper to sign or one step) or were dealing with government bureaucrats who also didn't understand family law ("I showed immigration services my divorce papers, but they still think I'm married!"), the level of ignorance is really startling.
I know that it's hard to find the time to educate yourself about yet another issue in today's society but I really think people should take the time to try and empower themselves. Their ignorance is really robbing themselves (and also their time and money) of their legal rights and also stirring up stupid controversy over cases like these.

Also to the people who have been so judgmental, it's really sad to read your comments. This girl is stuck in the middle of a difficult fight between her parents. I doubt you'd make these kinds of callous comments if her parents were just fighting over custody. You should step back and think about how your children (if you have them) might feel if someone made a comment like that about you.

It should be noted that the father not the courts is responsible for this ruling. The father's wishes must be considered in how to raise a child. Both parents mus decide how to raise a child even if they are not togethe any more. In a perfect world the parents would have reached a compromise.

This is not a case about "dangers of government interfering" --this is a case about divorce and shared custody and parents who cannot come to an agreement therefore it is up the the court to settle the dispute between the parents.

Lot of religions isolate the child from those of other faiths or the "heathens" Heathens are those not of their faith and they are going to "you know where" so you stay away from them cause they will take you with them.

If one's belief in God is so weak that others lead them astray then so be that cause those of God are not weak nor are they cruel. If their religion isolates them from the rest of the world then that is unhealthy minded imo.

I know those who Home School and they also have activities as sports at a public school so they are involved in a well rounded education or join softball or baseball community programs. Isolation is not healthy for adults let alone children.

The Evangelical movement has denigrated gays b/c "every child needs a mother AND a father." And yet, here, the movement is asking the courts to ignore the rights and teachings of the father b/c they disagree w/ him. It is absolutely critical for Evangelicals to remember that this is a case where the court was forced to resolve a dispute between parents. As was pointed out, what if the mother had been an Atheist, Morman, Mulsim, etc. and the father had been a fundamentalist Christian. What if the mother and child went to Mosque instead of church, the child had been taught that her father was a pariah and infidel, and the father wanted the child "exposed to other views," especially Christianity. Doubtful the Christian-right would be huffing and puffing about the right to home school. It's that two-faced double-standard that drives mainline Christians like myself batty. Let's apply the laws evenly and fairly, and let's recognize that the judge is forced to adjudicate a difficult situation, and in doing so, he's likely not imposing his own values, but the law and his experience as an interpreter of the law.

It's interesting that you take a domestic dispute between a mother and father and make the leap to the government taking away that decision when the two parents agree. You put forth a logical fallacy.

To the people who claim homeschooling should never be allowed -- right, like failing government schools are doing such a superb job.

I agree it's sad when children receive poor educations from minimally-educated parents. That's why I think it's reasonable for homeschooled children to take the same end-of-grade achievement tests as everyone else in the state. If they are clearly not learning reading and math, the state has some justification for stepping in.

To the people who point out children's fundamental rights (right to education, shelter, food, and freedom from abuse), that's absolutely right.

Has anyone noticed, though, that parental rights are not enshrined in the constitution?

"Millions of conservative evangelical Christians adhere to the same rigid and exclusive belief system about eternal salvation. Should we require them to attend tolerance classes? Should we court-order all of them to send their kids to public schools?"

We should if that's what one of the parents wants for that child!

I'm so sick of the level of hypocrisy and pretensions of victimization that the religious crazies have. I'm sure the father didn't agree to having his child brainwashed by religious fanatics in the divorce agreement. Good for this judge for standing up for this man and his child.

Also, when it's abortion the "father" should have rights concerning the fetus if the "mother" decides to abort it, but when the child is an actual living, breathing person and the father doesn't share the mothers zealous religious beliefs he's a nobody with no say in her upbringing.

I haven't seen this much religious hypocrisy since the religious nuts and their consevative followers in congress went after the husband of Terry Schaivo.

In reply to FYICOLUMBIAMD : You are correct that the ruling stated that Amanda was enrolled with a counselor. My point is that both the father and daughter may need joint family counseling. I also realize that the court was asked to mediate on the issue of home or public schooling, and they could only rule on that issue. However, I do think that the relationship of the father and the daughter needs to be addressed before she gets older. This ruling unfortunately is not able to accomplish that.

Unfair? To the other public school students, probably, who will be unwillingly subjected to this girl.

We had a girl from a similar background who transfered to our school from home school/private school as a third grader. She is now a seventh grader, and still is miserable, as she finds none of the very conservative, evangelical students around her will accept her, not to mention the more liberal students.

In addition, much time is wasted catering to her, listening to her parents' complaints, etc.

This is not a case about "dangers of government interfering" --this is a case about divorce and shared custody and parents who cannot come to an agreement therefore it is up the the court to settle the dispute between the parents.

Lot of religions isolate the child from those of other faiths or the "heathens" Heathens are those not of their faith and they are going to "you know where" so you stay away from them cause they will take you with them.

If one's belief in God is so weak that others lead them astray then so be that cause those of God are not weak nor are they cruel. If their religion isolates them from the rest of the world then that is unhealthy minded imo.

I know those who Home School and they also have activities as sports at a public school so they are involved in a well rounded education or join softball or baseball community programs. Isolation is not healthy for adults let alone children.

Home schooling has been the best alternative for those of us who have to cope with the failure of the government to provide American children with a decent education and cannot afford private school tuition.

Parents who home school are given an enormous number of resources, significance guidance to assist them in educating their children, and there are any number of stellar success stories.

Unfortunately, the largest number of participants have been extremist Evangelical Christians, who betray the mission of home schooling, reproducing themselves in the fastest growing cult in America, one which already poses a threat to democracy.

It has always been the mission of education to instill the principles of democracy in our young. That was the rationale for compulsory education.

The court was absolutely right in the case of Amanda. Hopefully, it will set a precedent.

Tough issue. Clearly, if both parents were religious nuts, they would have the right to homeschool their offspring to also drink the Kool Aide. But does the father have NO rights here? She's had the kid for many years of brainwashing already. If the mother were Islamic and sending the kid to a Madressa (sp?) would this change the opinions of the wingnuts who post here? The issue would be EXACTLY the same. What if the mother believed in polygamy as part of her beliefs and the girl was about to "come of age." Typical state family laws require the court to rule in the "best interests of the child" and that is a very subjective and difficult standard to interpret. The kid surely WILL be better off to be exposed to opinions of the rest of the world (religious and otherwise), but it's sure not an open and shut case that the state should be able to force public school on anyone's child.

I seem to recall there were quite a few people that objected to the Saudi schools around DC that were teaching their children lessons that Christians and Jews didn't much care for. And when the US Government put pressure on the Saudis to change their curriculum I don't believe the Alliance Defense Fund much cared to extend their umbrella over the Muslims.

BTW, I have taught for 38 years in a generally low-education, rural area. Most of the "homeschooled" kids I have tried to remediate were "homeneglected". They were given books by their low-educated mother and left to flounder by themselves in front of the TV until Mom got a job or got tired of being "tied down" with the responsibility. Then, the child is packed off to public school and the teachers are charged with trying to bring the student up to a minimal grade level. And the parents complain when the kids cannot pass the grade-level tests.

On the other hand, I have seen a few homeschooled kids who have had a stellar education in most areas. Top-notch parents producing top-notch students by being well educated themselves and pouring much time, effort, and money into their children's education.

Many of the homeschooled in our area are homeschooled due to "religious" reasons or due to parental control issues, such as unwillingness to get their kids on the bus each day.

Then the taxpayers pay to pick up the pieces.

I met a kid the other day who told me he graduated at the top of his class--an honor graduate! He told me he had a 4.0, and hoped to go to college, but had not been accepted yet in the local tech school. Turns out his 4.0 was from his homeschool. He was stocking the grocery store shelves.

My Daughter became a religious extremist when she was fifteen due to my ex-wife's efforts. It was an amateurish divide and conquer effort and I have been able to stop this pious form of child abuse. My daughter now knows that she is entitled to her beliefs and opinions but not entitled to her own facts. She is currently an honor student, in JRROTC and does not have any problems learning, accepting others AND holding to her spiritual beliefs.
Religious Cancer attacks science and history and this cancer will eventually spread and attack democracy and the rights of others. This cancer was at the heart of 911.
It is sad that our society must intervene to make sure kids are educated to 21st century standards but it is an essential requirement for democracy.

Public Screwels

"A mother has a constitutionally protected right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to make decisions regarding Amanda's schooling, religious training and other parenting issues without interference by the Court," the motions state.

Any "Constructionists" around to point out where in the Bill of rights it says "mother"?

The Founding Fathers couldn't have possibility meant mothers. If any parent is to be inferred it would be the father. Women and children had barely any better standing than slaves.

Had the conservatives supported the ERA and that was passed maybe that would be different. But you can't possibly say with any seriousness that the Founding Fathers would have taken the preference of the mother over the father.

What about the PARENTAL rights of the parents of Rafiq Bary, the Muslim girl who's being held in Florida? BOTH her parents want her back. Where's the Alliance Defense Fund? Does the fact that the parents are Muslim have anything to do with it?

To paraphrase the Alliance Defense Fund, parents have a constitutionally protected right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to make decisions regarding Rafiq's schooling, religious training and other parenting issues without interference by the Florida DCF or courts.

Theft or poaching of bear or deer in New Hampshire is illegal, but only if you are a "natural person." 208: 9-A

I'd argue that the girl is unnatural. When she grows up somebody will make her feel like a natural woman. A little rebellion from time to time is a natural thing. Like storms in nature.

"Turns out his 4.0 was from his homeschool. He was stocking the grocery store shelves."

Well, someone has to do it.

If her faith is so feeble it deteriorates upon contact with different people, it's not worth much.

The Amish, for generations, have maintained their own society and education system. This has always been allowed and has prevailed through many court battles. While I find Christian Fundamentalist beliefs repulsive, hateful, ignorant and extreme, I support their right to practice their beliefs as long as they do not interfere with our rational and well ordered society.

I view this case as one of kidnapping and brainwashing in order to deprive another person of his parental rights. To that end, the courts made a good decision.

To those of you so adamantly opposed to the legal right, yes, legal right to direct the education of our children, it seems from your comments that you have done zero research into the topic. I have. I invite you to read up on the research into home schooling, AND institutional schooling when considering the education of your children. We home school our children and they do interact with people outside of their ZIP codes and birth years, they are polite, curious, motivated and well-informed. We have researched different curricular and extra-curricular offerings and are giving them much more than they could get from our local schools, public/private/parochial. For the poster asking about the laws regarding home schooling, a few minutes research into the website of your state codes would tell you. I cannot believe I have to tell you something so simple and obvious. You must have graduated from a public school.

"I invite you to read up on the research into home schooling, AND institutional schooling when considering the education of your children."

Some parents choose to home school because they want to expand the educational opportunities beyond what the public system can offer. Other parents home school because they want to restrict the topics to which their children will be exposed. It's that distinction that helps to determine the end results.

This is a prime example of why childern are the losers in a parental divorce. How long have the parents ben divorced? was begining the child in homeschool a joint decision that Dad is trying to reverse now?
As a rule I find homeschooled children to be well educated, polite, well socialized children. To infer that all children raised in a religious environment are rigid is rediculous.

One of the basic freedoms granted to all Americans is religious freedom,no matter the faith.

"was begining the child in homeschool a joint decision that Dad is trying to reverse now?"

Page 2: "The evidence compels a finding that the parties have has a long standing disagreement whether Amanda should be home schooled..."

"To infer that all children raised in a religious environment are rigid is rediculous."

See Page 4 paragraph beginning "According to the Guardian..." as example.

"One of the basic freedoms granted to all Americans is religious freedom,no matter the faith. "

See page 7 paragraph beginning "In reaching this conclusion..." that outlines the Court's unwillingness to put any restrictions on Amanda's religious training by either parent.

This article ignores the fact that the original family court placed the child under the religious mother's care. They thereby remanded her to the rigid fundamentalism her mother followed. How is that different from what is happening here. The father has made a case that having her isolated in the beliefs of the mother has caused her some harm. We do not know, by the information in the article, what kind of beliefs or practices we are talking about. Would you see the same problem with the court intervening if the homeschooling mother was wiccan (witch). As a society, we have long seen the court as the arbiter of disputes around children, once Parents have dissolved their marriage and can not come to compromise due to their failed relationship. Are you suggesting that the court should always rule in favor of whatever Parent is Christian? The father in this case could just as easily been the fundamentalist. The court has been used as a fair arbiter. They are suposed to weigh the interests of the child against the differing wants and desires of the parents. As a parent, you have the right in conjunction with your spouse to make these decsions with out court interference. When divorce enters and there are conflicts on how best to raise the child the courts appropriate role is to act as the child's advocate.

1. Homeschooling itself is not an inherently bad thing, and its legality and requirements vary from state to state. Some states have very strict guidelines on what may be taught, while others are very loose. In general, most at least require an assessment of the child in certain basic areas (reading, writing, math, etc) at least once per yer to make sure that the child os on grade level. Other than that, the rest of the cirriculum can often be decided by the parents.

2. Conservative christians seem to want to have it both ways. They want a seperation of church in state in cases like this, yet raise all hell when you try to remove the 10 commandments from a courthouse, prayer from schools, or try to teach anything other than faith based abstainance sex education. You cant have it both ways, eiher there is seperation of church and state or there isnt, you cant have it whichever way suits your desires.

3. This case does not seem to be a case of religious freedom at all, but rather a custody issue. The father, who still has rights as a parent, wants his child in public school, while the mother wants to home school. If the two agreed on homeschooling, it would be a non-issue. Instead, they disagree, and seem to have taken a reasonable middle ground. There is nothing stating that the mother needs to stop teaching the child her beliefs (thus her right to free practice of religion is not being infringed upon), the courts are just granting the fathers wich for his daughter to be exposed to his and beliefs. Really all this is is a family dispute that conservative christians are trying to use to get everyone all riled up about the big bad government taking away freedoms.

What seems to be missing from this conversation is that the judge has decided that the best means of correcting a familial conflict is public school. Given that only about 3% of the school-aged population is homeschooled, does this mean that all those who have suffered under brutal divorces are from that small 3% who do not go to traditional school? Does this also mean that those who attend public school have their familial problems fixed? And, taking the idea further, does it mean that all intolerant, bigoted, hateful, or otherwise societal misfits are from that small 3% who do not go to traditional school?

I think not. Our schools are home to plenty of unhappy children and breed plenty of intolerance and divisiveness; anyone who doesn't believe that schools are stratified hasn't sat in a school lunchroom lately. Because the ills of society do not all fall on homeschoolers, it's a logical error to presume that sending this child to school will force the girl to change her religious viewpoint and rectify her relationship with her father.

The second logical error is to presume that homeschool in any way has something to do with this. There are plenty of public school students who hold extreme religious beliefs and will not be swayed regardless of their school experiences.

Parents who divorce and cannot be civil to one another harm their child in the end--that mother is doing nothing good by putting a wedge between father and daughter.

Remedies to that situation almost never involve school of any kind. Maybe altering the custody situation would help. Maybe forcing family therapy would help. But to presume that school will fix parenting problems is to put a burden on the schools that is risible unless we really do live in a nanny state.

I think both parents should have a say in a child's schooling and upbringing. In this case, for the child to spend every waking moment, school and otherwise, with her mother is damaging her relationship with her father. Her father, who is also responsible for raising Amanda, has an equal say in education.

There will come a time where having both parents in your life is a good thing. I can't imagine what it must be like to have your child focused so much on one religion that she'll say something along the lines of what Amanda did. She can't even understand or respect differences in belief with her own father.

Faith shouldn't be blind, nor should it hurt your relationships with your family. Giving children the chance to explore faiths of all kinds on their own will create a stronger person, one who understands differences and that there can be many different paths to the same goal.

The ruling is unfair to her new classmates. She should be kept at home where she won't infect others with the twisted Huckabee version of Christianity she learned from her mother that cherry-picks scriptures to hate and exclude others and thinks it's OK to scream "you lie!" at the President of the United States in the House Chamber.

HURRAY FOR THE COURT!

YES it SHOULD be against the law to indoctrinate hate, intolerance, fear, and superstition via a child's home schooling.

Home schooling MUST BE FIXED TO REQUIRE READING, MATH, WRITING, SCIENCE, WORLD HISTORY, AND TOLERANCE be taught alongside the bible and conspiracy blogs online.

Amanda and all other home schooled children deserve a REAL education... These brain-washed children of hate and intolerance ARE our future unless we require they actually learn some math, science, and history FACTS.

Amen for the court!! Conservative evangelical Christians are nut jobs, just as crazy and intolerant as the muslim fundementalists. they kill people they don't like (Doctors who provide women's services, etc). Amanda should have to interact with society in order to be a well rounded grown-up.

Why public school? Why doesn't the court pays to send Amanda to the same school that the Obama girls are attending. Public schools are not the answer. Woner who is the judge and why he made this decision. If the father wants Amanda to be exposed to other ideas, why does he homeschool her?>

First off, let me say that I am not a believer but feel that religion has both good (helping your fellow neighbors) and bad points (persecution of non-believers, etc). Belief is not rational, you either believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ is your saviour, etc or you don't.

While I do not personally like the type of education this young girl is getting, I am very suspicious of the court intervening in this case. The question here is: Do courts have the right to impose tolerance? Can courts force you to believe that some other religion is as valid as your own belief? If so, then the courts or government are violating the separation of Church and State. For example, could you force a Muslim to believe that Christianity is a viable religion for salvation?

However, that being said, the divorced father also has right guaranteed in law for the care of his child. And now the argument becomes a test of the rights of one individual over that of another. One solution is to put the child in a public school, where religion should not be a factor. The child would have to interact with other children of her age and become socialized to a society where tolerance ought to be practiced toward other religious beliefs. But this even presents a legal mess for the courts. How would Catholics respond if they were told that they must send their kids to a public school? This case really opens the proverbial can of worms.

This story is not about religion, it is about parental rights. The family values people should be glad that the court's position was that it was the parents who make decisions on schooling, and only if they cannot agree will others step in. One should not criticize the courts on this until one reads, and understands, the court's decision.

Is this court decision any different from children to be in the:
1) Hitler Youth? or school lecture to be in the
2) Obama Youth?

All the same, a mother's right to raise her child her way has been thrown out the window. Everyone of you with children should be scared to death. If one court can do this, then a precent has been set and not one parent is safe from a judge who doesn't like the way you are raising your children.

"Should we require them to attend tolerance classes? Should we court-order all of them to send their kids to public schools?"

Um, if one of the two parents demands it? If both parents agree, then there's a lot of leeway for this kind of indoctrination bordering on child abuse. But this child has two parents. Both should have a say in her upbringing.

Would it be more palatable if the judge had just dodged the religious issue, and given custody to the father?

Homeschooled children are victims. Victims of their parents beliefs and hence are warped and psychologically disfigured in their abilities to interact with normal people.

In this case, one parents cannot and should not, have the ability to control the life and spiritual development of the child.

This is reasonable, the father and mother should decide how to raise their child. In this case they could not agree and the father is fearful enough of the impact of home schooling that he took it to court. I applaud his level of commitment to his child.

On the issue of home schooling in general, I find it appalling that anyone can do this without first getting some training and a certification of some kind to ensure the child gets a quality education. This is a matter of public good, not about religion. But it is true that those that home school are overwhelming from the evangelical community, that gives me pause for thought.

Just think of the Atomic Explosion that would take place if her mother were an atheist, an agnostic, or even a Muslim.
Geeze! Fundamental Religion is Man's worst cancer!

It's unfortunate that the court made this an issue of religiosity. Whether or not she goes to public school, it's not the court's responsibility to see that she have an opportunity (before the age of 18) to "consider adopting any other religious point of view." It is the responsibility, and the missed opportunity, of the courts to ensure that children have the healthy influence of two parents if there are two parents available to provide love and support. Let's expect men to do something more than just pay child support; let's expect them to be regularly-active, positive parents to their children by giving them the opportunity.

This is not a religious issue, it's a father's rights issue.

I have marveled at the elegant and precise facts and argumentation in Christopher Hitchen's book, "
God is Not Great." In it he devotes some very intelligent effort to show that indeed, religious training of children is child abuse.

That so many credulous people cling to their half-baked understandings of the reality and nature of the world, and submit their kids to more of the same lies and baloney they believe is a modern shame. Thankfully most heavily indoctrinated children throw off their intellectual chains when they become old enough to think for themselves.

I support this parent's right to expose the child to the world as she sees fit. That said, there are instances like this where supporting that right is equal to condeming the child to a lifetime of narrow, limited parochiality.

Sadly, we give people the right to be idiots. Even more sadly, some of them embrace it.

I have met several homeschooling families. They banded together to make their own community, so for the most part (there are always exceptions), they have created their own school system.

The group I observed got together for social activities, seem to provide their children music lessons from the hard to find music teacher, and get tutors for subjects that they think their children need better instruction.

You can purchase homeschooling curriculum on-line and it is not priced cheaply.
The students do not have to take standardized tests; they don't have to learn to bubble in answers in first grade.
If it is done correctly with educated parents and that supportive homeschooling community, it can be everything that public school teachers dream of...let's go to the park and explore, etc.

Sometimes their reasons for homeschooling are religious or they do not like the "effects" or results of public education.

It is not something I "believe" in; people should go to public schools to deal with the people of their community and learn to get along in some fashion.

However, I don't think we should excoriate people who take another path.

I tend to agree with the poster who said that intolerance against religion seems to be tolerated.

As far as this case, I wonder about the facts before it went to court.
There is history between the parents which is part of the drama.

I do hope we find out how the student scores on her standardized tests.

I generally find David Waters columns interesting, but this one is 100% useless.

The problem has NOTHING to do with "government vs. home schooling". Nothing. 2 parents, with joint custody, couldn't agree on an education decision and VOLUNTARILY took the case up for arbitration.

Come on, David. Read your own precis.

If the mother is using religion to turn Amanda against her father, then yes, the court has an obligation to intervene. I'm not sure that ordering Amanda into public school is the solution, though. On the other hand, if Amanda lives in a world defined solely by her mother's religious views, she's going to have a tough time once she fledges and finds that the real world is quite different and she won't have the coping skills to deal with it.

Tough call, either way.

As is typical in these cases, the writer of the original article has completely failed to understand the relevant statutory and case law and the legal principles involved, and how those laws and legal principles are applied, has boiled the facts of a complex case down to the point of meaninglessness, and has instead chosen to write an "opinion" piece that is essentially a non sequitur.

The court is right. And this column, it its haste to pander to evangelicals, too quickly dismissing the inconvenient fact that the mother's religious indoctrination is destroying the child's relationship with her father. This case is little different, as far as I'm concerned, from the case of a mother who won't allow her child to take life-saving medicine. The mother's prerogatives are not absolute. Had she wanted to continue the home-schooling, she should not have set out to poison her daughter's relationship with the father, which I have no doubt whatsoever that this mother did.

It's sad to read all the hateful comments regarding religion. Indeed, there are always fanatics. However, NO ONE, not even Government, has the RIGHT to tell me what my child(ren) should believe in and how to think! I am an Orthodox Christian who solely believes in creationism. However, as a biologist, I also believe that God created evolution and the Big Bang! When anyone takes the Bible literally, which was written by man to be understood by the uneducated masses, then they are ignorant. Indeed, ignorance breeds ignorance. However, allow people the freedom to express themselves and believe in their own salvation.

This decision should not be about the faith that this girl's mother is teaching her; but, should be based on the effects that 2 peoples decisions have on their unborn children and their futures. Society has made it so easy to divorce these days, that we should actually stop and think before getting married instead! People get married on a whim. Didn't this man know what faith his wife believed in? Was he not a part of the decision to have their child homeschooled in the first place? Did this couple take the time to figure out how to raise their offspring? I have seen too many people enter unions, under God and in a courthouse, who have not taken the time to understand fully the ramifications of their "love" for one another. Just because we love someone does not mean that we can spend the rest of our lives with them peacefully!

By banning homeschooling, do so many of you believe that the public school system can teach tolerance and understanding of diversity? What happens when hatred is bred at home, before and after school? What happens when we force atheist attitudes upon those who "do" believe in a higher power? This is a very sad case in which a little girl believes that her father will not be with her for eternity. However, it is up to her father to make certain that she understands just how much he loves her and that respecting each other's beliefs is a beautiful thing. When she becomes a teenager and hormones start going wild, let's she who she will turn too? Maybe this is a case of a father scorned taking it out on his ex-wife? Maybe it is man who has fallen away from his original beliefs. Do we know? No.

We are all assuming too much! We do not have all the facts! Allow people their "rights" to freedom of religion, even if you do not agree with it. Don't forget what grounds this country was founded on......and stop PREACHING! Start Understanding your neighbors and giving all people a chance. Just don't push your atheist or agnostic views upon me as I don't push my blind faith upon you.

It is time to start monitoring the religious beliefs instilled in children by their parents. We don't want them to be contrary to the self-appointed intellectual elites that pervade our court system, congress, tenured faculty at major universities, the screenwriters guild, or news opinion makers. The Iranians have been very effective with this technique. Now, the question is where to start? Perhaps with the ultra-rigid Unitarian Universalists?

With rigid religious beliefs comes peace of mind. All the answers to every question is in the Bible. When you die, you will be reunited with your loved ones and frolic with them in the warm glow of Jesus for all eternity. Almost makes you want to hurry up and die so the pleasure of Heaven can begin. I don't know how the government can rightly insist that the girl be taken out of her home school so that she may be exposed to the larger world without coming into conflict with the mother's freedom of religion and her freedom to do as she pleases with the minor child that she, alone, is responsible for. The court decision probably is best for the child, but that is never the sole consideration.

"Family court-level justice is never easy and rarely clear-cut, especially when divorced parents are squabbling about how to raise the kid."

Excellent point. Because of that fact, it's inappropriate to try to frame cases such as this as alleged hostility to Christianity. One rarely heard complaints from "conservative evangelical Christians" about "the dangers of government intervention in our lives" in the days of mandatory prayer in public schools. Requiring students students to say Christian prayers certainly qualifies government intervention in personal lives. In my experience, a great deal (but not all) of the religious right's arguments about government intervention come down to a complaint that government no longer treats Christianity as the "normal" or "default" religion.

How can one take a custody case, where the actions of the mother were straining the access to her father, and turn it into government interference in religion? No one ruled the mother and child not to attend church. No one even ordered the child removed from the mother. This was purely a custody case and what is best for the child is not to have her relationship with her father strained.

In divorce much is considered to maintain the relationship of children with both parents. Happens all the time. The typical restraints are location, not allowing a parent to move outside an area for example. Many other considerations are made including access to the children. The father made the complaint, the government did not initiate this. He felt the mother's actions were straining the relationship and sought redress. He got it.

Stop reading into any religiously related issue some government hate for religion. You have it very wrong but I know many who are religious want to feel persecuted by the government. If you didn't noticed, the largest intrusion of government into religious affairs was the GWB administration. I'll bet you don't even know why.

"Hostility to Christianity"?
You're kidding, right? When no American Candidate DARES to claim s/he is an atheist and ALL are required to kowtow to the Christian Rightwing, at least in part, there is no "hostility to Christianity".

There is a hostility to equal rights for the nonreligious though, and this Supreme Court under Roberts has already set in motion the tools needed to enforce Government sanctioned Christianity.

Will this judgment stand? Probably not. SHOULD it stand? Absolutely.

This girl is going to enter the world profoundly ignorant of science and profoundly diseased by superstition, never able to grasp even the fundamental rules of the universe in which she lives.

Time to acknowledge as a nation that brainwashing does not produce stable human beings.

Admittedly, the third paragraph of the article is ambiguous. But if the mother is using her religious beliefs manipulatively to alienate the girl from her father, she should lose custody entirely.

This court ruling violates freedom of religion. Any higher court will throw this judgement out. This precedent also means that muslims will definitely not be able to homeschool and enforce 5-times a day prayer routine, which counts as "rigid" conduct for juveniles. In the meanwhile, this will become a good case study against liberal social activism who always complain that conservatives "blow out of proportion" the ill effects of their causes. Gay marriage being one of then.

Home-schooling OK, brain-washing NOT OK.

No one has the right to brain-wash anyone.

Children must be afforded protection from fanatics.

Children must be exposed to reality and must be allowed to interact with peers.

It is criminal what these religious nuts do to their own children.

Argh. Most of the quotes in this piece were quotes from the person who evaluated Amanda, not the court. There may be problems with the ruling, but a reading of the whole thing seems to indicate that Amanda was unable to rationally confront opinions different than her own, which is part of socializing, and can be a problem whether its about religion or about what the best Disney Channel show is. The court specifically wrote that this was not a measure of the value of religion, and it's not at all clear to me that there would be an objection to religious school.

I live In Germany, where it is against the law to home school. In fact, I know Americans who have been reported to the police by their German neighbors even though as per the Status of Forces Agreement, they have every right to teach their children at home.

I used to be very much against home schooling. I still think that everyone who teaches their child should be qualified to some extent and have to show that their child has made progress. After living in Germany and putting my children in German school so that they could learn the language and understand another culture, I have been more than slightly taken back to the extent that the government here interferes with people's lives; children really are seen as property of the state. So....I've changed my mind. If the mother, however rigid, is not harming her child, let her continue. I'm an antheist, by the way, though raised as Catholic and attended parochial school, so even parental influence doesn't have to be forever.

A child is not its mother's or father's lump of clay to be molded into a facsimile of one or another of its parents. If the court had ordered the mother in the case to attend public school so that she might be better equipped find her way in a pluralistic world, we would all have something to worry about. Protecting a child from a parent's extreme insularity threatens no one, and certainly not most of the home-schoolers who have commented here.

The headline and accompanying blurb are very misleading. The court here is supporting the father's rights not reaching into some stable family situation to impose an anti-religious and/or home-schooling result. The mother's opinion on her daughter's upbringing is only 50% of the equation. Why isn't this made clear on the front page?

Freedom to pee on your own face.
That's America fer ya.
If I want to tell my kid that a tortured dead man came back to life to save me from an eternity of burning hell that's my business. If my kid doesn't like it I'll tell it that the invisible evil spirit that lives under it's bed in an eternal cave of fire, will drag it to hell late at night when it's sleeping.
If that doesn't work I'll send my kid to sunday school as soon as it's old enough to go. Oh and I've got plans for dealing puberty too!
Re runs of Carrie.

A child cannot become a functioning member of society if taught intolerance of any kind. In fact, I believe it is child abuse. This parent, no matter how well intentioned is abusing this child.

I grew up in a solely white Irish Catholic town. I had never met anyone other than a White Irish Catholic. While I did go to school, it was only attended by white Irish Catholics. I came out of that school with what was considered a solid education.

However, when I went to college (much to my parents dismay, as I should have become a normal white Irish Cathoic Housewife) I was totally lost, confused and well behind my peers, not only in social development but also academics.

If you feel that your child is going to go bad just by exposing them to other races, religions and ideals, then the problem is that you did not do a very good job of preparing your child for the real world.

Freedom to pee on your own face.
That's America fer ya.
If I want to tell my kid that a tortured dead man came back to life to save me from an eternity of burning hell that's my business. If my kid doesn't like it I'll tell it that the invisible evil spirit that lives under it's bed in an eternal cave of fire, will drag it to hell late at night when it's sleeping.
If that doesn't work I'll send my kid to sunday school as soon as it's old enough to go. Oh and I've got plans for dealing puberty too!
Re runs of Carrie.

Parents have rights - but so have children. While you are free as an adult to hide away from the world and completely shield yourself from any kind of information that you believe beforehand you won't like, you are not free to cripple your kid by presenting a distorted image of society and bereave it of basic knowledge.

A child must be presented with a full view of the world and of the knowledge humankind has assembled. Only then is she equipped to make an informed choice of faith and lifestyle. If you home-school you children in order to only transfer your own views and own beliefs, you are abusing them.

Apparently those of you who are backing this totally outrageous ruling have missed reading a little known document called the US Constitution. Nowhere does it say that we all have to get along and believe all the same things. As a matter of fact, that is the one thing that the founding fathers were very much afraid of, that is, that some state would tell you what you can and cannot believe. This is the clearest violation of the separation clause that I have ever seen. This is the state dictating what a mother can or cannot teach her own child. I hope that you all come to realize that once you have given the court the right to decide this you have no freedom left. You are a slave to the whims of a judge and his beliefs, now think about what happens when they are in total opposition to your own. Giving up your neighbors freedom is easy but beware of where that leads.

"Apparently those of you who are backing this totally outrageous ruling have missed reading a little known document called the US Constitution."

No, apparently you have missed reading the actual ruling that you are ranting about.

"This is the state dictating what a mother can or cannot teach her own child. "

Starting at the bottom of Page 7:

'In reaching this conclusion, the Court is mindful of its obligation not to consider the specific tenets of any religious system unless there is evidence that those tenets have been applied in such a way as to cause actual harm to the child. The evidence in this case does not rise to that level, and therefore the Court has not considered the merits of Amanda's religious beliefs, but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others, both past and future. The Court declines to impose any restrictions on either party's ability to provide Amanda with religious training or to share with Amanda their own religious beliefs.'

"This is the state dictating what a mother can or cannot teach her own child."

No, it is not. The mother can go on teaching her daughter that the moon is made of green cheese, if she likes.

To clarify, I neither support the decision in this case, nor do I condemn it, because I cannot be an expert on what is best for someone else's child. I can only say what I might do if I was the parent.

"When no American Candidate DARES to claim s/he is an atheist and ALL are required to kowtow to the Christian Rightwing..."

If you were responding to my comment, I was questioning the religious right's claim about hostility, not endorsing it. Over the years, Justice Scalia has advocated a most-favored-nation status for Christianity, falsely equating government neutrality among religions as hostility to all religion. (I find his stance ironic because he's a Catholic yet he implicitly gives support to fundamentalist political arguments.) Sometimes the religious right acts as if no other religions exist, as if the only two possible positions are (its version of) Christianity and atheism. And to be fair, there are some atheists who talk the same way, as if Pat Robertson was representative of Christians in general.

FAITHFUL2 wrote:

It's sad to read all the hateful comments regarding religion.

___________________________-

What's even sadder is religion's hateful judgments regarding others.

Skipping right over the amount of intolerance (yes the word works both ways) to Christianity here, those making claims regarding homeschooling are attempting a simple association fallacy - or guilt by association. By the courts own admittance, statistically the girl in question is doing as well or better than she would be expected to do in a public School, she is as likeable or more so than she would be in a public school, and yet her dad wants to force her into - a public school. I would posit that this may not be about what is best for the girl at all, but in reality a display that her dad hates Christ more than he cares for his daughter.

If an Atheistic parent was teaching (exclusively) that there is definitely no God, and all others who disagree are crazy and should be treated with the amount of intolerance shown in this blog, would they be happy to be forced by the government to cease home schooling based on the precedent just set?

What an outrage. I hope the ACLU gets involved (no, I'm not kidding; the ACLU protects Constitutional rights, even of the far right wing). It is ironic, though, that the position of the Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing organization, seems to be that the Constitution protects the right of privacy and freedom from government interference. Now if they would just accord that same right to others with whom they don't agree.

Brad_81,

If the mother was so dedicated to home schooling the girl, why did the mother agree to legally binding mediation when when she knew full-well that the results might send the girl to public school?

How would you resolve a dispute between two parents who both agreed to abide by the results of their voluntary but binding mediation?

While I agree that it's the right and responsibility for a parent to raise their child as they see fit, it's the rest of us who has to live with those parenting decisions once the child becomes an adult. If I were to have my kid believe that certain races of people were not our equals, or that 2+2=Cat, it would be left to the rest of you to have to deal with such ignorance and prejudice. You have a right to raise your own child as you see fit, but you have an obligation to raise them to be well adjusted, decent citizens.

Freestinker,
Thanks for a thoughtful question. Given that this may be a precedent setting ruling, I would not expect she did believe this would be a possible outcome. I concede that a ruling forcing her child to attend "a school", as opposed to "a PUBLIC school" could have realistically been on the cards, and she should have accepted such a ruling. But the court, in ruling that her child MUST attend a PUBLIC (and thus by definition a non-religious) school has overstepped its bounds as to freedom of religion.

Unfortunately in all these situations it appears as if the child is being used as a pawn for both sides, but that doesn’t invalidate that one or both sides may have valid (partial) positions. If the child is succeeding academically, and has the social skills to relate to peers, I believe the mother is doing at least an adequate (if not more-so) job, and as she is the primary caregiver, her judgement should at least be weighed heavily into the decision.

fr fyicolumbiamd:

>...Other parents home school because they want to restrict the topics to which their children will be exposed. It's that distinction that helps to determine the end results.

I sincerely pity any child who is "homeschooled" by some nutball who ONLY wants little johnny or susie to learn the subjects in the way their "parents" did. Heaven forbid that their kids actually want MORE out of life, and realize that only mixing with the "right" people never, ever, works. Kids HAVE to be able to work with all types of others, and the best place to start that experience is in a REAL school.

Brad,

Religious liberty has nothing to do with this case. The court addressed that issue as FYIColumbiaMD pointed out earlier ...

"In reaching this conclusion, the Court is mindful of its obligation not to consider the specific tenets of any religious system unless there is evidence that those tenets have been applied in such a way as to cause actual harm to the child. The evidence in this case does not rise to that level, and therefore the Court has not considered the merits of Amanda's religious beliefs, but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others, both past and future. The Court declines to impose any restrictions on either party's ability to provide Amanda with religious training or to share with Amanda their own religious beliefs."

Both parents are still free to instruct their daughter on matters of religion as they each see fit. So this case is not about religious liberty, it's about parental rights.

On that point, they both have joint custody which means they agreed to share decision making with regards to education and to go to and abide by mediation when they disagree. Certainly the father has co-equal rights in this case and he wanted the girl to attend public school. The mother argued only for home schooling. She never proposed private school as an option and the court simply affirmed the conclusion and recommendation of the child's legal advocate who agreed with the father.

laSerenissima2003,

You are exactly right. Home schooling is a travesty.

Parents who arrogantly assume that they have the skills and expertise to effectively teach all academic subjects are depriving their kids of real educational preparation -- learning how to think, not just how to answer test questions -- for all the challenges life will throw at them.

This deficiency is then compounded by the absence of social interaction with their peers and the opportunity to engage in healthy academic debate with them. Furthermore, these kids don't have the opportunity to develop empathy and compassion for others because they're not mingling with others.

Children who are educated in a vacuum usually remain intellectually isolated, their development stunted by the lack of social, moral, and ethical provocation. They don't learn to make good decisions because they're never in situations that require either taking a stand or getting along.

Very sad outlook for these kids. Pity they have such self-absorbed parents.

Other than having given rise to David Souter, this is the first good thing to have come out of New Hampshire in many years.

Robert Frost, following Emerson, got it right:

"The God who made New Hampshire
Taunted the lofty land with little men."

(I live in Vermont)

laSerenissima2003 and kjohnson3 - again, you are making Ad-Hominum and Association attacks. Whilst many homeschooling children may suffer developmentally, not all, and certainly this one - by the court's admission - has not, so your arguments are quite inappropriate.

Turning back to freestinker's thoughtful arguments, if the court's decision is up for debate, one cannot rely on the court's ruling or explanation to justify itself, for this is an exercise in circular reasoning. You have stated, "Both parents are still free to instruct their daughter on matters of religion as they each see fit", however this is not true. The father is free to let the atheistic school system educate in his religion (humanistic/capitalistic) as he sees fit, but the mother is no longer free to use the same time to teach her beliefs. There would have been (and rightly so) an uproar if the state had legislated the child MUST attend a Muslim school, or a new-age school, or even a Christian school - as this would have been deemed to be the state forcing a particular belief system on the child. Why then is paganism/atheism/humanism, given a free pass? Again - the issue is not that the child be order to a school, but that the state has legislated she must attend a particular school that teaches a particular worldview.

Brad, public school systems are designed to be secular, not atheistic. They're not supposed to endorse any religious beliefs over others, and this includes the atheist belief that gods don't exist.

And whatever the merits or faults of paganism or atheism and humanism, those are separate beliefs and philosophies. Most atheists I've encountered oppose paganism because they see it as another supernatural belief system.

Brad,

You make a good point that a court decision does not by itself completely justify the decision but a simple reading of this decision makes it clear that their intent was not to interfere with parental religious instruction. Then we must ask, what is the effect of the decision on the mother's right to instruct her daughter on matters of religious opinion?

Public schools are secular, not atheist as they are silently neutral on matters of religious opinion. This policy protects the right of religious instruction for both parents. And since religion is not part of the public school curriculum, public school attendance cannot possibly be a infringement on the mother's religious liberty.

"The father is free to let the atheistic school system educate in his religion (humanistic/capitalistic) as he sees fit..."

As an fyi, reading the articles and court ruling there is nothing to indicate that the father is not also a Christian - the only indication is that the father does not share the mother's fundamentalist beliefs.

As others have noted, the Court specifically allows both parents to provide whatever religious instruction they deem appropriate - they concern expressed by both the counselor and the judge was the socialization and peer interaction that they viewed would be in the best interests of Amanda.

Based on the interviews from the counselor and teachers, it is hard to make a rational disagreement with that assessment.

"It is time to start monitoring the religious beliefs installed in our children by their parents...the question is where to start? Perhaps with the ultra-rigid Unitarian Universalists?"

Raym39: where in the WORLD did you get the idea that Unitarian Universalists are "rigid?" In reality, we're sometimes accused of being flexible to a fault. Most of those critics can't accept a faith that doesn't force dogma upon its followers--children included--and you're calling Unitarian Universalists rigid and suggest we present a danger to our children? The seven UU Principles which all congregations pledge to affirm and promote include: "acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; a free and responsible search for truth and meaning; (and) the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and society at large."

Most of us develop our spiritual convictions after long and careful consideration, and naturally hope to teach our children similar values, but we don't cling "rigidly" to them, and we certainly don't force them down our children's throats.

Unitarian-Universalism is a non-creedal religion whose membership includes UU Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Humanists, Earth-based spiritualists, Agnostics, and yes, even some Atheists, not to mention many who remain open to all faiths (though not necessarily all tenets of those faiths). We celebrate that diversity as a powerful and valid expression of the sacred. We are joined together by a strong belief that the divine can be found in many places, and that we can learn much from different points of view. Do you consider dogmatic religions/denominations whose leaders insist angrily and aggressively that they alone know and follow precisely "the one and only way" to be somehow FLEXIBLE?

If you'd like to actually learn something about UUism, you can log on to:

www.uua.org.

Though I hope you might find something of value to you there, you're entirely free to take it or leave it. Really.

Whilst I appreciate that there may be distinctions between atheism and secularism, unfortunately secularism most often results in practical athiesm, in a similar way to how Marxism results in communism. If how we are here is taught in a secular manner without reference to any god, the result is evolution - the athiestic position. If secular ethics is taught without reference to any higher power, the result is humanistic morality, which has a track record (financial crisis being latest example) of degenerating into 'what can I get away with'. This is the 'strong rule and strongest rule absolutely' position of evolution and practical athiesm. Where jurisprudence is taught without an external originator of law, instead of seeking to restore justice, the focus is on how the law itself can be wielded for one's own benefit: This fits into many world views (capitalism first amongst many), but fundamental Christianity (the mother's belief) is not one of them. If religion informs worldview, then you cannot rule for a particular worldview (including secularism) without restricting freedom of religious education or expression.

FYIColumbia's comment highlights where I believe the judge was both correct AND overstepping in this ruling: "The concern expressed by both the counsellor and the judge was the socialization and peer interaction that they viewed would be in the best interest of Amanda." I agree that no-one should argue against this, and I won't argue against a counsellor who is much more informed as to Amanda's development. However, socialization and peer interaction are equally availible (within reason) at any school - the judge should not have ruled for a particular (type of) school in order to achieve this.

"Whilst I appreciate that there may be distinctions between atheism and secularism, unfortunately secularism most often results in practical athiesm, in a similar way to how Marxism results in communism."

This is rather nonsensical. Our country has a secular government - and the overwhelming majority of Americans, both religious and not, strongly desire to keep it that way. (Note that the opposite of secular is theocratic - I see very few people, religious or not, that are seriously arguing that we should switch to becoming a more theocratic society.)

"If how we are here is taught in a secular manner without reference to any god, the result is evolution - the athiestic position."

Again, this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of both secularism and evolution (and atheism). Evolution is neither a atheistic nor a non-atheistic position - it is the prevailing scientific theory of biology.

"This is the 'strong rule and strongest rule absolutely' position of evolution and practical athiesm. "

Can you site *any* atheist ethicist that has made such an argument? Non-Christian ethicists from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics onward certainly appear to have a mcuh different view.

"However, socialization and peer interaction are equally availible (within reason) at any school - the judge should not have ruled for a particular (type of) school in order to achieve this."

Had the mother identified a religious school, I have no doubt the Court would have considered that. The mother requested to continue her home-schooling. The father wanted a public education. The testimony of the counselor and teachers supported many of the father's arguments and the judge ruled consistent with that. The judge then went out of his way to indicate that both parents still retained the right to provide whatever religious instruction they saw as appropriate. It's challenging to me to see what the controversy is.

If religion informs worldview, then you cannot rule for a particular worldview (including secularism) without restricting freedom of religious education or expression.

----------

Brad,

You have conflated so many factually distinct ideas here that it's hard to know where to start.

First, the court did not rule for any kind of "world view", secular or otherwise. We all live in the same secular country, under the same secular constitution and laws, with the same secular public schools ... so we all live under a secular world view no matter what our personal religious opinions may be. Living in a secular country or attending a secular school does not prohibit or inhibit religious liberty. On the contrary, living in a secular country is what makes religious liberty possible.

This case was just a simple dispute between two parents on how to educate their child. The court simply sided with father on the question of which kind of schooling (home school or public school) was best for the child. Private school was never suggested by the mother so it wasn't ever an option for the court to consider.

This case had nothing to do with the parents' religious liberty. Both parents are still free to instruct the girl about religion in any way the choose.

Besides, (secular) public schools don't teach religion anyway and it's a real stretch for you to equate silent neutrality on all religious opinions with advocating any specific religious opinion, much less atheism.

It works like this. The girl goes to public school during the day. She learns to read, write, math and science and art and music, etc. She plays with other kids and has many different adult role models. When she gets home her mom (or dad if she's with him) can instruct her on matters of religious opinion without interference from the school. If she gets the wrong idea about why religion is never mentioned in public school, her mom or dad can tell her that's because in the United States, her religious instruction is reserved for her parents at home or in the church of their choosing.

"It's challenging to me to see what the controversy is."

-----------

FYIColumbiaMD,

The controversy is that the mother didn't get her way and she's plain upset. I guess I would be upset too if I were her but she married the dad, and had a child with him, and agreed to joint decision-making, and she agreed to abide by mediation if they disagree. The mother voluntarily agreed to all those things and then when the chips didn't fall her way she got pissed and tried to play the religion card ... a mighty stretch of her imagination. It's the typical false persecution complex we see from fundies everywhere when justice is forced upon them.

Freestinker: Amen! (pun intended)

I agree with you on so many points, including your assertion that there's ample time for religious studies outside of school.

A few quick calculations reveal that your typical elementary school student spends twice as many waking hours away from school as they do inside of it, and that doesn't even include vacations and summer break.

I believe that a parent should indeed take an active role in their child's religious (and academic!) education, but honestly, if a child can't survive for six hours without a psalm and a verse from Galatians, then the parent has actually crippled, rather than strengthened, his or her spirit.