Court Denies State Right to Define Their Court System

[2dimes]

Greecepwns, did you notice none of the women in your sample wore head coverings? I did.

[bedub1]

i finally figured it out....when religion trumps the courts.

I heard of this religion thats serves alcohol (wine) to EXTREME minors. I saw some grade-schoolers partaking the other day.

Oh wait, no, it was actually BLOOD. lol

I'm not sure where I am on this law, because I don't understand the law. I don't want women get stoned or husbands honor killing them etc, but they still need their freedoms etc.

What about rape? I think this case stems from a rape case, where a muslim man raped his muslim wife. Which under US law is rape. But under muslim law there is no such thing as a husband raping his wife. It couldn't ever happen because they are married and there is no such thing as rape between husband and wife.

[PLAYER57832]

Yet another post from the realm of "don't bother me with the facts, I utterly misunderstand the issues, but I am going to post anyway":

i finally figured it out....when religion trumps the courts.

I heard of this religion thats serves alcohol (wine) to EXTREME minors. I saw some grade-schoolers partaking the other day.

Oh wait, no, it was actually BLOOD. lol

I'm not sure where I am on this law, because I don't understand the law. I don't want women get stoned or husbands honor killing them etc, but they still need their freedoms etc.

What about rape? I think this case stems from a rape case, where a muslim man raped his muslim wife. Which under US law is rape. But under muslim law there is no such thing as a husband raping his wife. It couldn't ever happen because they are married and there is no such thing as rape between husband and wife.

Hint: religious law DOESN'T trump the courts. It only comes into play when both parties have agreed to abide by it and come to the court to settle a dispute. OR when there is a contract involving agreements in other countries that are bound, at least in part, by religiuos law.

Further, per the "rape in marriage"... for a long time, that was US law as well. It only changed in the 70's. In some jurisdictions, it still has not changed.

[Night Strike]

Hint: religious law DOESN'T trump the courts. It only comes into play when both parties have agreed to abide by it and come to the court to settle a dispute. OR when there is a contract involving agreements in other countries that are bound, at least in part, by religiuos law.

If the parties agreed to abide by religious laws, why are they using the US courts to settle their differences? I thought the church and state were supposed to be separate?

Furthermore, states can't have dealings with other countries, so international disputes are supposed to go directly to the federal courts. Since this is a state law that only affects state courts, it has no bearing on those contracts.

[PLAYER57832]

Hint: religious law DOESN'T trump the courts. It only comes into play when both parties have agreed to abide by it and come to the court to settle a dispute. OR when there is a contract involving agreements in other countries that are bound, at least in part, by religiuos law.

If the parties agreed to abide by religious laws, why are they using the US courts to settle their differences? I thought the church and state were supposed to be separate?

Most examples involve marriage.

Some involve things like labeling foods "kosher", etc. There is far more overlap than one might initially think, and with very good reason. In order to have freedom of religion, all those boundaries have to be defined.

(another example, not related directly to this law is the fact that most Amish don't pay the same taxes we do)

Furthermore, states can't have dealings with other countries, so international disputes are supposed to go directly to the federal courts. Since this is a state law that only affects state courts, it has no bearing on those contracts.

I bow to the attorneys on this one. I have read many comments stating that it could be a problem.

Again, one example is in marriage. According to one opinion I saw, this could mean immigrants who come here might find their marriages not valid in Oklahoma.

[Night Strike]

Hint: religious law DOESN'T trump the courts. It only comes into play when both parties have agreed to abide by it and come to the court to settle a dispute. OR when there is a contract involving agreements in other countries that are bound, at least in part, by religiuos law.

If the parties agreed to abide by religious laws, why are they using the US courts to settle their differences? I thought the church and state were supposed to be separate?

Most examples involve marriage.

Some involve things like labeling foods "kosher", etc. There is far more overlap than one might initiall think, and with very good reason.

So you're now saying it's good that church and state mix? You've frequently stated that all my support for religious presence in the government is a desire for a theocracy, but now you say the courts get involved with religion for good reasons. So which one is it as they are mutually exclusive?

[PLAYER57832]

Hint: religious law DOESN'T trump the courts. It only comes into play when both parties have agreed to abide by it and come to the court to settle a dispute. OR when there is a contract involving agreements in other countries that are bound, at least in part, by religiuos law.

If the parties agreed to abide by religious laws, why are they using the US courts to settle their differences? I thought the church and state were supposed to be separate?

Most examples involve marriage.

Some involve things like labeling foods "kosher", etc. There is far more overlap than one might initiall think, and with very good reason.

So you're now saying it's good that church and state mix? You've frequently stated that all my support for religious presence in the government is a desire for a theocracy, but now you say the courts get involved with religion for good reasons. So which one is it as they are mutually exclusive?

I am actually not really giving an opinion, just trying to clarify the issues involved. A lot of what is posted here makes it clear the debaters don't "get" the debate. Ultimately, the court will decide.

But, there are 2 important distinctions here between this and theocracy.

First, the cases to which I refer are not universally applied. They apply specifically when all parties have previously agreed to abide by the rules. Even then, there are a lot of limitations. The one that keeps coming up is marriage, a place where there absolutely is a lot of overlap between government and religious law. I mean, that is the whole argument against homosexual marriage, that it violates "God's law" (though termed in various ways).

Second, a lot of the rules are about defining the limits. For example, I would say that its important for anyone to trust that the label "Kosher" means the item really is Kosher. Its just "truth in advertising". Whether anyone considers that important or not is irrelevant. Similarly, it has been important for the courts to decide when and how parents can refuse medical treatment for their kids.. when religion trumps and when scientific evidence trumps. As for the partaking of wine, etc. Some people don't seem to realize that even in prohibition, certain groups were allowed wine specifically for religious reasons.. Jews, Roman Catholic Priests, etc. And, as I mentioned earlier, the Amish don't pay most taxes. (I believe they generally pay sales tax, but don't pay income taxes) They don't pay them because they don't use the things taxes go toward. They are also exempt from some military service, etc.

The problem with the right wing is that they want to move those scales over, and declare that ALL citizens, not just a few have to obey the standards they consider correct.. and too often they do so based solely on superficial understandings of the real issues involved. For example, I can count on one hand the number of anti-abortion people who understand that the numbers they cite include a high number of miscarriages, that is impossible to even know the number of truly "voluntary" abortions because the statistics are simply not kept. Not admitting, not bothering to understand those facts heavily distorts the debate. That is one big reason why religion should only be applied with great caution.

I fully agree that the use of religion in law should be highly limited. The problem here is that this singles out one particular religion and, it seems that the proponents have not fully considered ways that religion already is both used and limited in and through courts.

[Juan_Bottom]

In cases of religion trumping law, there was a case in Wisconsin a while back where the Amish took their kids out of school. They fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won, almost by a landslide. You can find it if you're interested, I don't feel like Googling.

[patches70]

In cases of religion trumping law, there was a case in Wisconsin a while back where the Amish took their kids out of school. They fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won, almost by a landslide. You can find it if you're interested, I don't feel like Googling.

Homeschooling is legal in all 50 states. And the case you are referring to is Wisconsin vs Yoder.

[Neoteny]

Ironically, this law is almost exactly like Sharia law in that it made a decision based on circumstances that would only apply in made-up fantasylands. Really, this would be just as hilarious if Oklahomans were criminalizing human/jinn marriage. Good call, Okers. And lol at everyone defending it.

[Juan_Bottom]

In cases of religion trumping law, there was a case in Wisconsin a while back where the Amish took their kids out of school. They fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won, almost by a landslide. You can find it if you're interested, I don't feel like Googling.

Homeschooling is legal in all 50 states. And the case you are referring to is Wisconsin vs Yoder.

The trial wasn't about homeschooling, it was about compulsory education versus religion. The Amish didn't plan on homeschooling anyone.... they just didn't want their kids to learn.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

Three Amish students from three different families stopped attending New Glarus High School in the New Glarus, Wisconsin school district at the end of the eighth grade, all due to their parents' religious beliefs.

The children's welfare and want weren't even an issue.

Justice William O. Douglas, who dissented in part, wrote:

"I agree with the Court that the religious scruples of the Amish are opposed to the education of their children beyond the grade schools, yet I disagree with the Court's conclusion that the matter is within the dispensation of parents alone. The Court's analysis assumes that the only interests at stake in the case are those of the Amish parents on the one hand, and those of the State on the other. The difficulty with this approach is that, despite the Court's claim, the parents are seeking to vindicate not only their own free exercise claims, but also those of their high-school-age children.... On this important and vital matter of education, I think the children should be entitled to be heard. While the parents, absent dissent, normally speak for the entire family, the education of the child is a matter on which the child will often have decided views. He may want to be a pianist or an astronaut or an oceanographer. To do so he will have to break from the Amish tradition. It is the future of the students, not the future of the parents, that is imperiled by today's decision. If a parent keeps his child out of school beyond the grade school, then the child will be forever barred from entry into the new and amazing world of diversity that we have today. The child may decide that that is the preferred course, or he may rebel. It is the student's judgment, not his parents', that is essential if we are to give full meaning to what we have said about the Bill of Rights and of the right of students to be masters of their own destiny. If he is harnessed to the Amish way of life by those in authority over him and if his education is truncated, his entire life may be stunted and deformed. The child, therefore, should be given an opportunity to be heard before the State gives the exemption which we honor today."

[PLAYER57832]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

Three Amish students from three different families stopped attending New Glarus High School in the New Glarus, Wisconsin school district at the end of the eighth grade, all due to their parents' religious beliefs.

The children's welfare and want weren't even an issue.

Justice William O. Douglas, who dissented in part, wrote:

"I agree with the Court that the religious scruples of the Amish are opposed to the education of their children beyond the grade schools, yet I disagree with the Court's conclusion that the matter is within the dispensation of parents alone. The Court's analysis assumes that the only interests at stake in the case are those of the Amish parents on the one hand, and those of the State on the other. The difficulty with this approach is that, despite the Court's claim, the parents are seeking to vindicate not only their own free exercise claims, but also those of their high-school-age children.... On this important and vital matter of education, I think the children should be entitled to be heard. While the parents, absent dissent, normally speak for the entire family, the education of the child is a matter on which the child will often have decided views. He may want to be a pianist or an astronaut or an oceanographer. To do so he will have to break from the Amish tradition. It is the future of the students, not the future of the parents, that is imperiled by today's decision. If a parent keeps his child out of school beyond the grade school, then the child will be forever barred from entry into the new and amazing world of diversity that we have today. The child may decide that that is the preferred course, or he may rebel. It is the student's judgment, not his parents', that is essential if we are to give full meaning to what we have said about the Bill of Rights and of the right of students to be masters of their own destiny. If he is harnessed to the Amish way of life by those in authority over him and if his education is truncated, his entire life may be stunted and deformed. The child, therefore, should be given an opportunity to be heard before the State gives the exemption which we honor today."

Living in Pennsylvania, we hear a lot about these issues. The truth is that a lot of people have distorted views over what it means to be Amish.

Here, kids are educated until 8th grade, but that's not really a fair comparison to other schools. They have their own schools or are schooled at home in math, reading, writing and the Bible. They learn a little history, not much science. (though most live on or near farms and so do know animal and crop basics).

BUT, and this is key, as you mentioned. Around 16 they have the choice to stay or leave. They get sent off for roughly a year to "explore the world". Boys and girls do this. Only after are they allowed to be baptized. How strictly all these traditions are followed varies. Down south, kids are not allowed to play with non-Amish kids. Here, kids will sometimes play with neighbor kids, wives will visit, but just with a few restrictions. The kids will play baseball, swing, but not video games. Amish around here have cell phones, but for "business only" (and emergencies). Some even have computers. A few Amish do drive, but mostly they hire others to drive them.

But, kids who try to leave often find themselves in a world for which they are simply not prepared.

I read an interview with an old timer from Lancaster that sticks with me. he said that they tried letting their kids go to high school, but it failed. If they let the kids go to high school, it was harder to get them to come back and "shovel manure". (his words) Essentially, ot me, that means the kids really and truly are not being give a choice, because if they are shown other opportunities, they don't come back. However, kids are notorious for not being able to fully think things through. So, you could argue that, much like the McDonald's toys, thrusting teens into this new world is just too enticing. The kids "decide" without really understanding the full consequences yet.

But, on the other side.. if that is true, then the kids also do not have the capacity to decide to be Amish at that point, either.

In the end, much of what we do, particularly the way we educate our kids, shapes our kids in ways both good and bad, but that choice has always been left up to parents. With schooling, the real issue is less of freedom and more impact to society.

One reason the Amish are given such freedom is because they don't vote, they have, historically set themselves apart from "regular" society in many ways. As they come to interact more.. moving into construction trades, for example, instead of "just" farming, conflicts are happening more and more. While Amish are generally respected and seen as "good neighbors" here, there is some resentment that they are able to have 16 year olds working, are able to not pay minimum wages, etc. They can offer much cheaper prices on construction than many contractors. And, they generally do good work. (though the stereotype doesn't always hold true, there are "shoddy" Amish workers, too).