I thought this was an interesting article. I can't believe the court did this. I can't post the link or the whole article, but it's on WorldNetDaily (wnd.com) A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith. The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view." The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court. The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.
found the main article, which makes it even worse than your excerpt does. Yikes!! Where did freedom of religion get lost in all this? I bet if mom/daughter were Muslim or Jewish the judge never would have stepped on toes like this. Grrr.
We have this huge concept in America of "separation of church and state" that everyone seems to quote as the most important aspect of the 1st amendment, but that is not really what the 1st amendment says, and most seem to forget about the red-headed step child of the amendment that reads "or prohibit free exercise thereof" That second clause in the sentence is just as important as the first, but no one wants to acknowledge it . . .
Does anyone know what part the father plays in this? I'm thinking that HE wanted her going to PS, because he felt that the mom was "over the edge" when it came to religion. I DO know that the courts can and will step in on custody cases. We had a family in our church who had joint custody of his daughter from his first marriage. They had a restraining order against bringing her to ANY activity that was church-related, because Mom didn't want it. Mom felt our church was a "cult".
It is said when the courts try to take away our rights!! What is even scarier is that I heard yesterday on Sean Henity (?sp) that the president is wanting to try to take control of the internet and stop the use of it for the regular public, us! Jay S. has this being watched as well, slowly they are trying to take all of our rights away!
MichaelGarner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view." Because it couldn't indicate that she had considered and rejected them, right? I read about this article in a couple places. The father didn't want the girl to be HSed, the mother did, they had decided to have the court work as an intermediary, and the judge decided as stated.
Stuff likes this happens all the time in NH, it's just no as publicized as this case was. NH is not easy to homeschool in, although if you look at the homeschool site they make it sound easy. They are always trying to pass new laws and change current laws. The government here really want to dictate what every child does. NH is not a very homeschool friendly place.
This article was discussed on another thread. I read the article and found some others - seems the girl wasn't too in defense of her religion but was being involved in what could be considered to some a form of brain washing. the mother had also pulled the father's rights and was questioning them. in response, the father used the public school system so he could monitor his daughter. It's not right, but neither is a mother keeping rights from a perfectly good father. We see alot of cases like this in CA - they don't make the news very much. it realy wasn't an article stating that her religion was the problem. Her shelter and restriction from her father was the main issue. Another newspaper did a much better job portraying that - and didn't seem so inclined to "drama" (yellow journalism).
What a shame...but I don't think it has much to do with our freedoms and homeschooling in the long run.
This is what I thought about the article also. I saw it as more a parenting / custody issue vs a homeschool/religious issue. The judge did what he felt was best the child given the evidence. I am sure it is nothing against homeschooling or religion and the father has just as much right as the mother in this case.
