"Too Religious for Homeschooling"

[BookofMormonLuvr]

i see your point, and i stand by my comment, the religious views as stated to be those of the mother, and the rigidity of said views as well. however, despite my opinion about nuttiness, I do not believe, rigidity of religious views is grounds for forcing a child into public school, which said force/compulsion is intended to challenge the girls religious views.

I admire one who sticks by their rigid religious views more then one who waffles in the face of worldly pressures. Would you change or waffle in your uniquely LDS beliefs because the world considers them "nutty"?

[frankenstein]

Would you change or waffle in your uniquely LDS beliefs because the world considers them "nutty"?

nope

and I see a difference in having nutty beliefs and being nutty about those beliefs.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

nope

and I see a difference in having nutty beliefs and being nutty about those beliefs.

You do realize you are judging their beliefs as nutty based on your own beliefs and your disbelief concerning their beliefs. It's all a matter of perception. I am sure they consider your LDS beliefs equally nutty.

[frankenstein]

You do realize you are judging their beliefs as nutty based on your own beliefs and your disbelief concerning their beliefs. It's all a matter of perception. I am sure they consider your LDS beliefs equally nutty.

yes, i acknowledge that as a LDS person I might have beliefs that are considered nutty. I also believe that I am not nutty in my interactions with others.

[Garden Girl]

The problem here is if the Judge really gave the reasoning he did, then he has overstepped his bounds with regard to interfering with the mother's right to practice her religion and raise her child in it. As far as I can tell, a judge has no place or right to rule in any way on a person's 'rigidity on matters of faith' and use that as a basis for legal decisions which interfere with a parents rights to raising their children and practicing their religion (part of which practice is raising your children in your belief system). It is unconstitutional.

I agree we need to see the full context, but if he really ruled as reported, I too believe he overstepped his bounds.

In the news discussion, one of the commentators mentioned Catholic Schools, Seventh-Day Adventist schools etc... all of which teach religion with a "rigidity" of doctrines and faith. Should all of those students be forced into public schools?

From the news report, this just stuns me also... the implications are staggering...

GG

[Jaybear]

... one of the commentators mentioned Catholic Schools, Seventh-Day Adventist schools etc... all of which teach religion with a "rigidity" of doctrines and faith. Should all of those students be forced into public schools?

Do they all have one parent that believes, and has shown the court that the school curriculum is causing their child to resent them. If so, then yes I think they should all be forced into public schools.

What is more important, a child's bond with her father, or the mother's desire to home school a child?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

yes, i acknowledge that as a LDS person I might have beliefs that are considered nutty. I also believe that I am not nutty in my interactions with others.

YOU believe you are not nutty in your interactions, others my not agree. It is all perception.

[Bsix]

Do they all have one parent that believes, and has shown the court that the school curriculum is causing their child to resent them. If so, then yes I think they should all be forced into public schools.

It is not the government's role to make families like each other, share religious beliefs, or get along. America is full of children who are influenced by a custodial parent to dislike the non-custodial parent. Courts simply do not or should not get involved regulating in family dynamics. It seems that in this case, religion is being used as the basis for an intervention.

What is more important, a child's bond with her father, or the mother's desire to home school a child?

Two answers to that question...first what business is it of the government to get involved in this family matter?

Second, what is 'more' important is completely situational. I suggest that there is no universal standard here what is best depends on the Dad, Mom, child, and circumstances that vary from family to family.

Six

[Jaybear]

It is not the government's role to make families like each other, share religious beliefs, or get along. America is full of children who are influenced by a custodial parent to dislike the non-custodial parent. Courts simply do not or should not get involved regulating in family dynamics. It seems that in this case, religion is being used as the basis for an intervention.

Two answers to that question...first what business is it of the government to get involved in this family matter?

The government did not intervene. The father was dissatisfied with the education his daughter was receiving, and he brought a dispute with his ex to the court's attention.

Would you have preferred that he kidnap the child and enroll her in public school against the will of the mother.

This is not anything like what happened in Texas, when the state took children away from their parents.

Second, what is 'more' important is completely situational. I suggest that there is no universal standard here what is best depends on the Dad, Mom, child, and circumstances that vary from family to family.

Situational? Really? I know your church teaches the importance of a father's having a healthy relationship with his children. But I have never heard it come out in favor of homeschooling children.

Please tell me, in what situation would it be better for child to be home schooled rather than have a healthy and loving relationship with her father?

Are these the sort of values homeschooled children are taught?

[Bsix]

The government did not intervene. The father was dissatisfied with the education his daughter was receiving, and he brought a dispute with his ex to the court's attention.

I suggest you check the dictionary...

in

[Jeff K.]

I think the base argument that the religious upbringing was the reason for intervention is the one that the higher courts will focus on. It is one thing to intervene and dispute a custody situation, indeed one has to ask the court why it did not switch custody over to one parent or another if there was enough evidence to show damage to the child. In theory there must be a compelling reason for the state to be involved. I haven't seen it in either argument. I think the court overstepped its bounds and that its focus on religious tenets for its compelling reason will result in a reversal.

[Jaybear]

I suggest you check the dictionary...

Correct, I should have clarified, on its own initiative.

Silly hyperbole.

Its only hyperbole, because the courts are available to resolve the dispute.

A healthy relationship is the obvious outcome.

Then why are we even having the discussion. The court, in making its ruling, accepted the finding of a court appointed GAT.

This is not a case about 'homeschooling.' It is a case about the impact of religious homeschooling.

No its a case about homeschooling.

As I said before, I don't think the courts should be involved in family relationship management...especially if it involves taking away religious rights.

The mother can still offer her child religious indoctrination. That right has not been lost.

I also suggest that if this father wants a healthy relationship, he should consider the unhealthy impact on the relationship with his daughter of using the govenment to attack her most sacred beliefs. Healthy relationships are a two-way street.

I think that a decision the father needs to make for himself.

I believe that most who home school are very conservative religious people. They are passionate, principled, and generally good decent values. Home schooled children tend to be high achievers and are well adjusted. I'd say that for the most part, home schooled children have as good...or better...values as their public-schooled peers. Home schooled children of divorce parents are no more or less prone to conflict and dysfunction with estranged parents than their peers.

If both parents agree that a child should be home schooled, well then that is their decision to make.

Home schooling is not the real issue here. It is the religous values of the mother and daughter that are causing discord with the Father.

How would you expect the courts to intervene in a case of a religious, pubic-school-attending child who is at relgious odds with a non-custodial parent?

If the father gave up custody of the child, I would not expect the court to intervene, unless the divorce decree reserved the matter of religion.

[frankenstein]

If the father gave up custody of the child, I would not expect the court to intervene, unless the divorce decree reserved the matter of religion.

the Parents (both) reserved the schooling decision for the Court. The court leaped beyond its bounds in deciding this.

The issue could be resolved by the New Hampshire Supreme simply by ruling that the there were NO grounds for forcing the child into the public school system.

*edit, meant to say NO grounds for forcing the child into public school, sorry for the mistake bsix.

Yes, I agree, that whole intent behind the girl being forced in to public schools is to challenge if not change the girls religious beliefs.

A 10 year does not need their beliefs challenge, save it for College.

[Bsix]

The issue could be resolved by the New Hampshire Supreme simply by ruling that the there was grounds for forcing the child into the public school system.

The problem with such a ruling is that it would be a sham. The core issue of the conflict is the religious beliefs of the Mother and Daughter. That is what the Father is objecting to. He wants to modify the religious beliefs of his daughter and believes that a public, secular education will accomplish that.

If the court's objective is to change the religious beliefs of the child through a court-ordered public school intervention...even if it does not cite religion...the court IS taking sides on a religious issue.

I think it is the motive of the court...not how carefully avoids mentioning religion is the issue here.

A religiously motivated decree is about religion...even if tney don't cite religion.

Six