Jonathan Falwell totally misleads his readers

I don't know about you, but I pay judges to ignore unimportant things, like the religion of people involved in a civil or criminal suit, and to pay attention only to those things that are relevant to the case at hand. Since we do not have Sharia courts, rulings should only necessarily support a reasonable interpretation of secular law. It should not primarily take into account the content religious beliefs. I know that there are some instances where these two magisteria conflict, but when they do, the secular law, insofar as it is Constitutional, needs to be upheld.

With this in mind, as an atheist, I was completely appalled by the wording of a ruling that is supposed to have recently came out of one of those completely indistinguishable New England states (New Hampshire). I'll take the quote from Falwell's article, "Is Diversity Threatening Christianity?"

A Christian homeschooled girl was ordered by a New Hampshire court this week to attend a public school because her faith is a "bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews."

No joke.

I am furious at the thought of a court actually ruling that someone's faith "must be sifted." It is not a court's decision to decide that someone needs to be well adjusted or equipped to handle the real world. Luckily, that link leads to WorldNetDaily, so I never really had to worry about the quote being accurate.

Check it.

When you examine the case, one that is apparently only getting any coverage at all in the fundamentalist and, ahem, survivalist blogosphere and not at all in the legitimate press (seriously, fundies, look who you guys are hanging out with), it is a parental dispute. It's slightly different than a custody battle, apparently. The mom is a fundie, apparently, educating at home, and the father wants his daughter to attend public school. So the parents brought this case to the court to decide. Right? OK.

But what about this ruling, eh wot? Let's look at the WorldNetDaily report, which, like many lazy news outlets, basically quotes a press release at length. Hey, beats working.

The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."

According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."

A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to represent the interests of the child for the duration of a legal action. While they are appointed by the court, they do not represent the court. They may be paid by the parents (that apparently varies by state), but they do not represent the parents. They are independent social workers, volunteers, or lawyers who take on the responsibility of representing someone who is unable to represent herself.

I want to know which court documents that last statement came from, but all I can find is the uninstructive phrase "court documents." Indeed every search I found only refers to "court documents," except for one homeschooling blog that just accepts the claim that as fact. I suspect that such testimony comes from the mother's camp, though nobody seems to have bothered to report in such a way that proves me wrong that this was merely a charge, not an established, proven fact.

But what about the assertion that Falwell starts off with?

A Christian homeschooled girl was ordered by a New Hampshire court this week to attend a public school because her faith is a "bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews."

Was this the wording of the court? Where does that information come from? Because I am fully prepared to express outrage and solidarity with my Christian fellow citizens on this one if it came from the court. Let's go to the Alliance Defense Fund press release:

“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working,” said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton. “The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take.”

Goddamnitalltohell! You were quoting the lawyers?!? Jeezis.

The ruling itself is available online, wherein one encounters this ripe little slice of hell:

I mean, c'mon. If you are going to say the mother has absolute rights, so does the father, and this is clearly a bad deal. Of course, this is why the parents agreed have someone outside the family represent the best interests of the child when it came to important decisions.

But that was not the only indication that there were problems caused by homeschooling. The guardian recommended that the girl see a counselor. When that report came back, it sort of looked like this:
Trying to save the court appointed psychologist. How cute and telling.

What about that statement about the guardian basically imposing her/his will on the mother? Well, it seems that there is some question about how reliable charges by the mother in fact are:

Eek! Someone made charges they could not back up, it looks like, and it hurt their case. I think I am going to talk about ethos with my class on Monday.

But certainly home school wasn't effecting the girl's ability to form relationships with other kids or having an effect on the school work that she was doing to meet local educational standards!
Ouch. But at least the court cravenly barged in and eagerly futzed with the private lives of these citizens, right? I mean, throw me a fricken bone!

Ahh! C'mon, Jonathan, didn't you report on anything that actually happened!?! They must have at least dickered with what the parents are allowed to teach the girl. I mean, big violation there, right!?!
Homeschooling is not a religious right. It is not an intrinsic right of parenting, either. The ADF can argue that it is, of course, and that makes me happy because they are going to lose every time.

HJ