Perhaps the girl really is in danger, but too many conservative Christians damned her family to hell instead of waiting for the facts, all because they are Muslim
I was roundly flamed at the time for condemning this rush to judgment against a suspect group as unfaithful to our constitution. I asked these crusaders to pause and consider that it could happen to them as well, since Christianity is already suspect in many corners of this nation.
Well, here's the other side playing out in New Hampshire:
One of these courts is in New Hampshire, where a judge recently ordered that home-schooled Amanda Kurowski be sent to public school. The order signed by Family Court Justice Lucinda V. Sandler says the 10-year-old's Christian faith could use some shaking up—and that the local public school is just the place to do it. [...]This is based on complaints from Amanda's father, divorced from her mother for 10 years. The mother had primary custody and has chosen to home-school the girl, including religion in her curriculum.
But the order appears to be based on the guardian ad litem's worry about Amanda's "rigidity on faith." The order also accepts the same guardian's conclusion that Amanda belongs in a public school because she "would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior and cooperation in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so:
The family unit is sacrosanct, and unless lawbreaking is going on, no judge or pastor or anyone else has any business poking their nose in. This is a fundamental freedom that conservative Christians usually stand up for.Religious bigotry cuts both ways...
It's all well and good until Uncle Sam decides to bust up your Jesus Camp and liberate your brain-washed kids from your home and your authority.
WSJ - William McGurn
Citizen Times - Cal Thomas
AmericanFreePress.net
11 comments:
So, are you saying that the girl should be sent to a public school or that the mother should be allowed to home-school her?
The mother should be allowed to home school her.
Here's the original blog post:
http://warskill.blogspot.com/2009/08/rifqa-bary-muslim-girl-and-christian.html
I for one do not agree with homeschooling, but it is the right of the parents, in this case the right of the mother. The government has no business interfering, unless, the child is being neglected in the home studies. I have seen that firsthand.
As for Rifqa's family. It is the Mosque that they attend that worries the Christians. They follow Sharia Law and it dictates that little girl must die. I sincerely believe she will be murdered, maybe not by her parents but someone will do the job.
As far as the NH case goes, while the state ought not to have any say in the matter, it is in the context of attempting to resolve a dispute between two divorced parents. I think there is more to the story then is portrayed and would have to defend some sense of balance between the two opposing viewpoints, as much as between a secular parent and a Christian parent as I would between say a Christian parent and a Jewish Parent or a Protestant Parent and a Catholic one.
Reverse the position and imagine yourself a Catholic father fighting with a secular ex-wife and the court ordering Catholic school to balance a religion-free, secular home education.
The Rifqa Bary case seems to hinge more on the alleged statements of the father and the alleged enforcement of Sharia law. While a parent can constitutionally impose religious precepts and quasi-legal systems upon their children (think Amish or even Catholic) that legal system is still constrained to operate within the boundaries of civil law.
Finn and Leticia: I agree that these are not easy cut and dried issues. Precisely my point.
I appreciate the whole honor killing argument, but under our system of laws, you can't take a parent's rights away because they belong to a suspect group. That is my point.
Perhaps the system of laws should be changed.
Just because I have a kid doesn't mean I should have ownership over that kid like a piece of property.
Unless the kid has some sort of special reason to need home-schooling, it really shouldn't be allowed.
Unfortunately in Kansas it doesn't make a difference.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment. The Bary case must be decided only upon the facts present, not the religion.
I read up some on the "Global Revolution Church" and find them highly suspect, their actions trolling facebook for naive children to convert is reprehensible. I've never been a big evangelical, and find their evangelizing of minors without the knowledge of their parents as morally abhorrent as the state evangelizing a secular philosophy.
The highest threat comes from extremists of all colors, secular, Christian, Muslim, or Jew. I read the "flaming" you received... and I think it illustrates my point, dhimmi (lol). The people flaming you had a preconceived judgement of Islam, meet the Muslims...the new Jews. The majority of there statements had nothing to do with the factual case, they were just a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary imbeciles with an axe to grind against Islam. Which is why I don't bother to post there, as the rationale and intellectual responses are few and far between. Their responses were no different than Ahmmanidiot's referral to America as the Great Satan. Of course, they'll never see that, and arguing with them is pointless
I'm more interested in your perception of the NH case as a state vs religion case, as opposed to a battle between two parents with different viewpoints. To portray it as a parental rights case ignores the rights of one of the parents. Like it or not, when two parents divorce, they invite the state into the mediation of the dissolution.
The articles that I have read on the NH case seem to spin it one of two ways, either the mother is a religious whack job or the state is overstepping it's bounds. Most ignore the father's position entirely or mention it only in passing. Whether I agree with him or not, he has as much right to a say in the raising of his daughter as the mother does, custodial or not.
Cheers!
OK, you got me. I chose a weak analog, but it was the only timely one within grasp.
I remember our buddy Kev bitching about the guardian ad ligtiem, or whatever she's called, when he was wresting custody of his daughter away from his deadbeat ex.
I also agree with your assessment that this could be spun various ways and the anti-government types chose to ignore the father.
You know me, my agenda is to get people to think, not just react.
Hugh may be coming down out of the wilderness, maybe we can all get together for an editorial meeting? I'll keep you posted.
Sounds good.
Never had to deal with a guardian ad litem... but I think I got the father's rights perspective from Kev.
Sad part is that in some cases the position of guardian ad litem offers many the opportunity to advance their own interests rather than those of the child. Which may be part of what is going on in the NH case... the court certainly seems to be holding a negative view of religious principles here.
I've always been an advocate of public schools offering comparative theology courses. Sadly enough this is opposed as often by the 'religious right' as the 'secular left'. I've always thought those who are not secure enough to examine their own beliefs and those of others seriously need to take a look at their own beliefs. In the Catholic High in the town I grew up in comparative theology was a required course (those pesky Jesuits), of course the public school offered no such opportunity to its students.
Lets ignore the absurdity of associating an inanimate community Mosque with the political tendency of its members in a religion without an organised church or clergy.
In this case you have the rather ironic case of a extremist christian sect that abducted and brain-washed a families obviously sensitive and impressionable daughter. They go on to effectively accuse the moderate, educated and modern secular AMERICAN parents of being uneducated tribal Pakistani Pashtuns (they're all brown right?!). Wow.
To add insult to injury, when the judge finds no threat, the accusations of extremism gets louder. This is the world Muslims must live in post 9/11. It doesn't surprise me that the parents didn't encourage this girls Islamic education or to be proud of her Islamic roots, considering the social stigma of being Muslim in the US now. Muslims are accused of being extremists or secretly coveting extremists values. Yet its the United States that is burdened with religious extremism of its own, and the home school phenomenon is evidence of a truly large population of Millions of anti-American "patriots" who'll resort to anything to fuel religious hatred.
Ghulam: We agree that it is an egregious wrong to assume dark motives of someone just because they are Muslim. That is un-American. You can't take someone's rights away because they belong to a suspect group.
I also agree with you that the young lady was lured by an adult male, which in itself should be investigated by law enforcement.
I disagree with you when you turn around and tar all Christian home schoolers as bigoted religious extremists.
How could you do that after defending the religious rights of Muslims so eloquently?
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.