Posted on 09/03/2009 9:03:31 PM PDT by Steelfish
Christian girl ordered to attend public schoolMom's religious views ripped by court
By Julia Duin
A New Hampshire court ordered a home-schooled Christian girl to attend a public school this week after a judge criticized the "rigidity" of her mother's religious views and said the 10-year-old needed to consider other worldviews as she matures.
Ever since the judge's ruling came out in July, the case has aroused the interest of home-schooling groups nationwide, whohave asked why a court has the power to decide whether someone's religious views are too extreme.
The girl's mother, Brenda Voydatch, has engaged the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., to contest the ruling, in which the judge granted a request by the girl's father, Martin Kurowski, that the girl go to a public school.
On Tuesday, the girl, Amanda Kurowski, started fifth grade at an elementary school in Meredith, N.H., under court order. Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The revolution is already underway. The media cheered in January 2009 and called it another “velvet revolution” only this time instead of going AWAY from Communism (as the Czechs did) our Constitution is being thrown out without a shot.
No, this is not judicial tyranny against parental rights. This is judicial deciding of a dispute between two divorced parents who both have parental rights, but disagree on how to educate their child. There was no “imposition” - the judge was deciding a dispute.
If the judge had decided the other way, would you be upset because she “forced” the child to attend religious school against the wishes of the child’s parent (father)?
Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.
is what I found galling. And yes, the judge is playing 'god'.
"She has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view..." ???
What the heck is that about? Adam allowed Eve to 'seriously consider another point of view' back in the Garden a long time ago ... and that worked out wonderfully for all of us...
If the judge wants to play anti-Solomon and cut the baby in half due to the legal custody arguments - that's one thing. Interjecting that being raised in a Christian environment is inadequate because the person is not exposed to enough lies that might change their mind - is entirely something else...
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Hold your calls. We have a winner!
I would argue that teaching a child that her father doesn’t love her because he doesn’t share the mother’s religious beliefs is a lot more harmful to the child than anything the judge did here.
Well, it looks like that is "about" the fact that the mother claimed that she wanted to homeschool the child in order to pass on her Christian values (I don't know how it's a Christian value to teach a child that her father does not love her because he has different religious beliefs - that looks like a mother who is using "Christian" teaching to turn her child against her father after a divorce). The father, on the other hand, wanted to expose the child to other views.
The judge didn't "interject that being raised in a Christian environment is inadequate because the person is not exposed to enough lies that might change their mind," the judge stated that being exposed solely to Christian teachings/worldviews is inadequate in this case because the girls father wanted her exposed to other worldviews.
Just because you believe & agree with the mother's Christian teachings does not mean that the father has no rights to make decisions regarding the education of his child. If the judge had decided otherwise, don't you think the father would be arguing that the judge forced the child to be homeschooled and taught only Christian beliefs, against the father's will? Why would that be OK if this is not?
YOU have no idea what that Judge just did to that Child, unless you have walked in the shoes thats pretty bold statements.
And I'm guessing the divorced father turned homo?
It’s a custody thing with the mom wanting home schooling and the dad wanting public schooling. The mom and dad apparently agreed to let the court decide, and the court ruled for the dad.
The troubling thing to me is the appointed guardian’s refusal to even look at the home school curriculum because it was Christian. That’s just wrong. How can you be the appointed guardian if you don’t even want to see the facts of the situation?
because there is nothing in a public school worth being "exposed to."
I would argue that teaching a child that her father doesn’t love her because he doesn’t share the mother’s religious beliefs is a lot more harmful to the child than anything the judge did here.
*************
Many people simply will not believe that a parent would be so evil as to say that to a child. It does happen. It was done to my stepdaughter, whose “Christian” mother told her, over and over, that if her father really loved her he’d “become a Christian” (read: join MY church). The child was having recurring nightmares in which Daddy was in hell, being burned in the fire, and she couldn’t help him. This was when she was only six years old.
Her “Christian” mother lost custody before the damage was too severe for my stepdaughter to overcome, thank God.
I sincerely hope that is not what is happening in this case.
Impeach the judge.
You have absolutely no evidence to support the claim that the mother taught this to the child, rather than the child formulating this conclusion on her own, which is actually quite logical and reasonable if one assumes the truth of Christianity. Further, Amanda made reference to the father's acceptance of her *own* religious beliefs, not the mother. Further still, if you read the quote, Amanda doesn't deny that her father loves her. It is however the spiritual extent of that love that she questions, and rightly so if we again assume the truth of Christianity.
This little girl seems to understand things much better than some adults...you included.
she pretended to be Jewish (never converted just lied) and insisted my two girls with her go to Temple and reject Christendom which had been their faith for 7-8 years just to please him and sate his parents (that funky tribe thingie)
anyhow , my dad and I decided nope, you have pegged the wrong goyim on this one so we fought back and in a courtroom in Miami where everyone was Jewish but me including even the bailiff and court reporter, the Judge (Gertner?) ruled in my favor and said they could go to what ever service with whomever parent...I had never objected to them going to Temple ...I have been to some Seders ...including some high Holy day ones with real Jews...not secular wannebes.
The clincher was when he asked my ex if she knew what Purim was and she looked like a deer in the headlights but I knew...lol....plus she was very non Jewish looking and Jews are anything but stupid...they know their own when they see them same as I do a good Southron the second they open their gator
but my point is that I can't see the reasoning behind stripping the precedence of the kid going to Christian school and if the mom has primary residence custody then often that would give her more juice in that matter especially if she is paying for it.
epilogue for fellow travelers: my ex and he split, both girls have been with me now for years and one is born again and going to law school and the other...the wilder bohemian one does have good work ethic and is going to mortician school as of last week in Manhattan...don't ask me why?...the money and flexibility...she wanted to be a doctor..lol...2/3rds of funeral home folks are now chicks...i looked it up
New Hampshire now has something in common with Nazi Germany. Germany got that anti-homeschool law from Adolph Hitler and KEEPS IT!
Mizz Lucinda Sadler is misnamed ... “Lucifer” is more like it.
Of course not. As I've said before, Muslims in the USA are very good at defending their faith from this kind of BS. We should learn from them.
I'm only going by the posted text of the article.
Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.
To paraphrase: 'Because the young girl, Amanda, has a strong belief in Christianity, the Judge, Lucinda Sadler, takes this as evidence that she has not had the opportunity to consider any other points of views'...I.e., The Judge has effectively said, 'IF Amanda is a committed Christian - she must be nuts - because surely she would not have such a strong commitment if she were exposed to other world views...'
Its called being born again; something which the Judge would not understand.
Yes, this response from the Judge strikes me as something fitting from a Judge in Saudi Arabia, but not one in America.
The father my think its a fine thing to subject her daughter to a den of snakes, and the mother believes otherwise. I'm obviously on the mother's side -- but my objection to this article is to the Judge's remarks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.