the parental rights stem not from religion, surely! but rather from the constitutional right of privacy. or are you claiming, vance, that atheists don't have parental rights that can be protected by the constitution!? Steve
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Vance R. Koven <vrko...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well really, I think some of you are assuming your conclusions. Whether > something is child abuse is what is to be determined, not what is to be > assumed. > Those of us of a certain age may recall being spanked. It did no lasting > harm, and may have done considerable good. However, whether it did or not, > it was not considered a matter for state intervention, and civilization did > not collapse on that account. > > The question is not, as Marci thinks, whether the law takes the side of the > parent or the child, it's whether and under what conditions the law (i.e., > the state) takes it unto itself to take sides and to intervene in > intra-family affairs. We have consensus on serious bodily harm, maybe even > on visible physical injuries like black eyes or bloody noses; when you get > into speculating about psychological and social "injuries" it starts to > shade over into state ownership of children. My smaller point is that > religions have always had rather a lot to say about the relationships within > families, particularly between parents and children, which is a zone that a > free exercise clause worthy of the name ought to respect. And my larger > point was, and remains, whether the state is bound, regardless of any other > consideration (such as religious freedom) to take whatever view of > child-rearing the secular upper middle class decides at any given moment to > take. We have developed a rather Dickensian, and some might say irrationally > sentimental, view of children and childhood, and I wonder if the > Constitution really offers no refuge at all from having those sentiments > shoved down the throats of dissenters. > > While in principle Eugene is right that whether the state intervenes > shouldn't be determined by whether the parent is acting out of religious or > secular motives, it is only in the case of religiously motivated parents > that there is a legal hook on which to hang an interest in parenting > methodology that requires the state to justify itself on the basis of > compelling interest--unless you can engineer a free speech interest, which > seems to me a stretch. It would be ironic indeed if the justification for > parental authority is the concept of privacy. > > So the question remains, can the law come up with reasonably objective > standards for determining when it will leave parental decisions on > discipline to the parents? Is a black eye to be treated differently from a > black-and-blue bum? Are parents to be held prisoner by their children's > (purported) eggshell psyches? > > Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice (IIPSJ) Inc.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
