Religious Schools - A Form of Child Abuse?

[The Terrible Sweal]

First a question, then an answer:

Question:  Which individual?

Answer: Yes in proper cases.

By "which individual" I assuming you're asking whether I mean parent or child. For purposes of this discussion we're talking about parents, right?

The point is what do we do in cases where it appears the 'rights' of a parent may be upheld only at the sacrifice of the interests of the child and society.

As far as I know, parents *do* have the right to make decisions regarding the upbringing their children.

They have a duty, to the child, to do that. I don't think you'll find it is enshrined anywhere as a 'right'.

I think it's important to cut that a little bit finer.  The cases show that the clear dangers have justified a very personally invasive process forming a significantly defining aspect of the religion.  In other words, it isn't so much setting the bar as selecting the pigeonhole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying that since the courts can order such a dramatic violation of religious freedom in dire circumstances, they might also be able to order less dramatic violations of religious freedoms in less dire circumstances?

Close. I am saying that just because they said, 'yes, this case is dire enough', doesn't mean that all subsequent cases must be equally or more dire.

BTW, I don't think it's necessary to confine this to what the courts might do. These question apply equally in the policy/legislature realm.

[kimmy]

The point is what do we do in cases where it appears the 'rights' of a parent may be upheld only at the sacrifice of the interests of the child and society.

I'm not sure that "society" has any rights, at least in the context of this discussion.

In situations when the child's rights and the parent's rights clash, we go to court, as a number of cases illustrate.

As far as I know, parents *do* have the right to make decisions regarding the upbringing their children.

They have a duty, to the child, to do that. I don't think you'll find it is enshrined anywhere as a 'right'.

I think you're mistaken. 8 seconds with Google brought me to...

Parental rights and the charter

A Christian site, to be sure, but one with a Supreme Court ruling to support its view:

...parental decision making must receive the protection of the charter in order for state interference to be properly monitored by the courts, and be permitted only when it conforms to the values underlying the Charter.

That was from a 1995 ruling regarding (surprise) Jehovah's Witnesses and medical treatment. There's certainly some wiggle-room, but the key point is that the parents' rights to make decisions about their children has been ruled to be protected by the Charter.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying that since the courts can order such a dramatic violation of religious freedom in dire circumstances, they might also be able to order less dramatic violations of religious freedoms in less dire circumstances?

Close. I am saying that just because they said, 'yes, this case is dire enough', doesn't mean that all subsequent cases must be equally or more dire.

I think it's clear that the courts do consider there to be a parental right to make decisions regarding their children. Certainly not an absolute right, but one that the courts take very seriously. While the circumstances might not have to be as dire as a life-saving medical procedure, it is going to have to be something very compelling.

BTW, I don't think it's necessary to confine this to what the courts might do.  These question apply equally in the policy/legislature realm.

Except that policy which challenges parents' rights is ultimately going to wind up in court at some point.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

The point is what do we do in cases where it appears the 'rights' of a parent may be upheld only at the sacrifice of the interests of the child and society.

I'm not sure that "society" has any rights, at least in the context of this discussion.

Right? No. Interests? Certainly, the protection of vulnerable citizens is a societal interest.

I don't think you'll find it is enshrined anywhere as a 'right'.

I think you're mistaken. 8 seconds with Google brought me to...

...parental decision making must receive the protection of the charter in order for state interference to be properly monitored by the courts, and be permitted only when it conforms to the values underlying the Charter.

I sit corrected. But I have read the full decision now and I don't think it changes the big issue. Parents have the 'right' to make decisions about raising children, up to the point the 'rights' of the children are afflicted. We still have the question of whether mal-education can cross that line.

[takeanumber]

This is one of the admitted contradictions in liberalism.

Should people be free to organize their own schools for their own religion?

Or

Are the benefits of non-segregation better for society as a whole? (Religious/Private schools ARE segregatory).

Conservatives make the mistake of going one step furthur. They argue that not only should there be segregation, but moreover, they should not have to pay into the public, secular system...as though they don't benefit at all from the public system.

That arguement becomes incredibly flawed when you point out that single and infertile people, and senior citizens...also pay for schools...and they can hardly argue that they're getting no benefit from it.

The liberal comprimise is called 'sunday school'. That way you get the benefits of the both, while reducing externalities.

[The Terrible Sweal]

This is one of the admitted contradictions in liberalism.

Should people be free to organize their own schools for their own religion?

Or

Are the benefits of non-segregation better for society as a whole? (Religious/Private schools ARE segregatory).

Or

Should children have the right not to be brainwashed.