Posted by
Fco on Sunday, October 01, 2006 10:43:40 AM
Came across this story for the main site:
A father may teach his young daughter about his religious belief in polygamy despite his ex-wife's objections, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Thursday.
The 5-1 decision by the state's highest court said Stanley M. Shepp has a constitutional right to express his beliefs about plural marriages and multiple wives even though bigamy is illegal. Shepp considers himself a fundamentalist Mormon, though the Mormon church officially renounces polygamy.
A county judge had prohibited Shepp from teaching the child about his polygamist beliefs - at least until she turned 18 - and that decision was upheld by the state Superior Court.Newman wrote that the state's interest in enforcing the anti-bigamy law "is not an interest of the 'highest order"' that would trump a parent's right to tell a child about deeply held religious beliefs.
Source And personally, I'm glad for it.
I don't condonde polygamy. I find it disturbing the secluded lifestyle the fundamentalist mormons subject their children to. Growing up in closed communes with no exposure to the outside world, these children are raised completely ignorant of the rights and freedom their country entitles them. And I think it's sick when it goes as far as pedophilia.
Compare that to another case from California, making it's way into the Supreme Court. In 2001, the Mesquite Elementary School administered a survery on its first, third and fifth graders about early exposure to trauma. Some of these questions addressed sexual topics arguably inappropiate for these young children, such as "touching your private parts", "thinking about sex", "touching other's private parts", "feeling guilt?", etc. To be fair, the school did notify the parents that a survey would take place, but gave no warning as to how explicit it would go. After the survey was done, and parents learned what had happened, some of them went to court seeking damages. The judge in favor of the school, and the 9th circuit court unanimously rejected the parent's appeal. Judge Reinhardt's words from the 9th circuit court:
"parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
"[parents] have no constitutional right to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so. … Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent."
Sources
here and
here.
In my humble opinion, they can and must.
What the judge is saying here essentially, is that the state, through the schools, can undermine or override the moral education a parent is providing for their children, as they see fit. If you don't think your child is old or mature enough to discuss sexual topics, the school doesn't have to care, it can provide whatever lesson they feel is appropiate. And they don't need your consent, they don't even have to notify you.
This is not a case of a parent who thinks evolution is the Devil and wants it out of the classroom. Schools are there to teach reading, writing, mathematics, history, biology, etc... Morality, has always been the domain of the parents. They are the ultimate arbiters of what their kids learn to be right and wrong. No one else. And God help us the day the government takes over that duty. Our children will certainly grow up to be model citizens.
In the first case, the judge did not allow the parent to bring his child into the mormon lifestyle, only the right to teach him about it. I don't share his beliefs. Nor with the KKK member who teaches his child to be a racist. I think those teachings are harmful. But if I expect to wield the power of the state, and intrude into the parent-child relationship that way, then it will inevitably turn on me later on. And some government official, acting on behalf of God knows what lobbying group, will tell me "you can no longer teach your son that X is wrong, it goes against the country's values". I suspect the first value to go, is questioning our leaders.
If I want the right to teach my child my view of morality, I have to respect everyone else's as well. I don't agree with them, but in protecting their right, I'm protecting mine as well. A school's job is to teach children how to think, not what to think. And they're having a hard enough time at that.