Yesterday the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued its ruling on a dispute between divorced parents over their daughter's education. (HT: Volokh) The trial court ruled for the father, who wanted to send the daughter to public school, over the mother, who had been home schooling her, and the Supreme Court affirmed. These sorts of disputes are always thorny because the court by necessity is asked to rule on matters that implicate religious convictions and commitments. From the Supreme Court's opinion:
In its order, the trial court did not express a belief that daughter needed to be exposed to other religions that were contrary to or different from the beliefs of her parents. Instead, it considered the importance of daughter having the ability to openly communicate with others who have a different viewpoint on a subject matter, whether or not the topic is religious in nature. It also considered the benefits of group learning, group interaction, social problem solving and exposure to a variety of points of view. We reject mother’s contention that the trial court expressed disapproval of her actions in encouraging daughter to share her religious views. Rather, the trial court found that daughter’s firm religious convictions likely stemmed from the amount of time she spends with her mother, considering that daughter primarily resided with, and had been primarily educated by, her mother.
I do not know enough about the case to opinion on what the outcome should have been, and I acknowledge that courts are put in a very difficult position when they're asked to rule under these circumstances. But I am troubled to the extent that "exposure to a variety of points of view" is a basis for favoring public school in a dispute over a child's education. This rationale would not be limited to cases involving home schooling, but could also justify a preference against private religious schooling. I don't think that should be the state's call to make.
The Sixth Annual Conference on Catholic Legal Thought will convene at the University of Oklahoma College of Law two months from today. On May 17 we will spend the afternoon with Paul Griffiths, Warren Professor of Catholic Theology at Duke discussing "The Essential St. Augustine fr 21st Century Lawyers and Law Professors. To facilitate the discussion we are asking participants to read "Augustine: Political Writings," Adkins and Dodaro (eds), Cambridge Univ. Press 2001 and Books 2 & 19 from "The City of God." On May 18 we will have sessions on "The City of Man: What role should law play in infusing the City of Man with the City of God?" and "Forgiveness and Conversion: What should be law's attitude toward treatment of post-conviction criminals." And, on May 19, Steven Smith, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at San Diego wlll present his book, "The Disenchantment of Secular Purpose," which should be read in advance to prepare us for a robust discussion.
Next week, I will post the complete schedule along with registration material.
David French tackles the question by looking at the groups to which Christians donate their money. (My own anecdotal evidence supports French's observation: of my many conservative Christian friends and family members, I'm not aware of many who give money to "culture war" advocacy organizations, but the vast majority sponsor at least one child through Compassion, World Vision, Holt, etc.)
I was not lucky enough ever to meet Professor William Stuntz, whose passing is noted today here. But I do know his very thoughtful piece (authored together with the force of nature that is Professor David Skeel) on Christianity and the (Modest) Rule of Law. The implications for criminal law, in particular, for a "Christian" and "modest" law are well worth considering, especially in light of the federal criminal law's seemingly ever-increasing scope.
I wish I had had the chance to know Professor Stuntz.
A new study shows that Americans are more accepting of families headed by a same-sex couple than they are of families headed by a single mom. And while the numbers on the same-sex couple question have moved dramatically in recent years, the numbers on the single-mom question have not. I'm not convinced that this reflects any illegitimate bias against single moms rather than an acknowledgment of the empirical data that kids raised by single parents do not fare as well on a number of scores as kids raised by two parents. We don't, as far as I'm aware, have similar data suggesting caution about same-sex couples. So maybe we're headed away from the broader "traditional" versus "non-traditional" split in public opinion on family social policy and toward a "two parent" versus "single parent" split?
Tom Neven asks the question, at First Things. (Please read the piece before writing an outraged "of course not!" comment.) He concludes with this:
[I]t is out of my deep respect for human life, created in God’s image, that I think the only just punishment for a cold-blooded murder is that that life be avenged as God commands. But being human and fallible, I urge the greatest caution and certainty before doing so.
My view is that political communities should reject capital punishment, in part because such a rejection can (though we should not pretend it always, or even usually, does) provide a witness to the dignity of the human person. I do not think, though, the question is an easy one.
Indiana's governor, Mitch Daniels, has been working to expand school-choice in Indiana. Good for him. Here's a link to an interview with him about it. Indiana's teacher-unions, though, are strongly opposing these efforts. Too bad.
