Her.meneutics: The President's Speech and Parental Rights

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Top 10 Posts of the Last 30 Days | Main | The Case for Male Circumcision »

September 9, 2009

The President's Speech and Parental Rights

To what extent should the government shape children’s beliefs?

Alicia Cohn

Children in many U.S. schools yesterday heard President Obama exhort the values of hard work and personal responsibility in his back-to-school address. Reformed pastor John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church praised the speech as “a wonderful gift of common grace from God to the students of our land.” Before the speech, many parents had protested the way it was framed — the Department of Education had given schools a “menu of classroom activities” that suggested students write about “how they could help the President” — rather than its content. Many parents demanded that their school districts provide alternatives to watching the speech or that they not show it at all. School districts were forced to respond with less than two weeks’ notice to the Education Department’s announcement.

Meanwhile, in Quebec, a court struggle recently broke out over a new, mandatory “Ethics and Religious Culture” course that will replace three separate religion courses for all students. Some Christian parents protested it as a violation of their right to choose their children’s religious education, but Quebec’s Superior Court ruled August 31 that the class does not violate the right to “freedom of conscience and religion” in the Canadian Charter of Rights. Here's how one law professor at the Université de Sherbrooke defended the ruling:

What parents were demanding was the right to ignorance, the right to protect their children from being exposed to the existence of other religions. . . . This right to ignorance is certainly not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of religion does not protect the right not to know what is going on in our universe.

Then, a home-schooling mother in New Hampshire received a court mandate last week to send her 10-year-old daughter to start fifth grade in public school. The fight over Amanda Kurowski started with her divorced parents, her mother’s Christian beliefs and her father’s concern about Amanda’s “rigidity on faith.” District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler ruled that, thanks to her mother, Amanda was ignorant about other religions, and that the "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs . . . suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”

What these controversies have in common is what they reveal about the state of parental rights. Defining these controversies as a struggle between ignorance and experience, or between “major problems” and “hoopla” (as did Secretary of Education Arne Duncan), makes them easier to dismiss. The real issue is the one behind the details: These days it seems that one parent’s “ignorance” is another parent’s “freedom,” especially when it comes to his or her child’s education.

God commanded his followers to “train a child in the way he should go,” giving parents much responsibility for their child’s formation (Prov. 22:6). I am not a parent, but I have good ones, who exercised a lot of say over what I was taught and exposed to as a child. I would not want to grant any judge or politician the right to circumvent my parents’ authority, whether on religion or policy.

Still, I admit that various issues can complicate the priority of parental rights. For instance, regarding the controversy over Obama’s school speech, Albert Mohler said that it “smacks of disrespect for the President” when Christians criticize every move Obama makes. Meanwhile, in Ohio, the parents of Rifqa Bary wait in limbo for a judge to decide if their daughter can be kept away from them: she says they are dangerous, but there is no evidence proving them unfit. Is it ever justifiable for a government to take a parent’s choice out of their hands?

Comments

The mother answered this professor's labelling her as an advocate for ignorance (rather than for priority in what is first learned) :

http://pouruneecolelibre.blogspot.com/2009/09/mother-to-national-post-gross.html

Of course there is reason for the government to step in. I don't think anyone really questions the right of government to step in when there is a case of abuse. The question that we always have to deal with then is the line between abuse and choice. There are a few parents that would say it is appropriate for children to be molested or married at a very young age, and some of those point to religious values (think the Mormon splinter groups). Those are extreme cases, but are important to the overall discussion because they do have religious beliefs that are strongly held (even if not seen as legitimate by many.)

I do think the primary issue with Obama's speech was a large over-reaction to nothing. And what ended up happening was not that the schools were forcing children to watch, but that schools were prevented from showing the President because of a very vocal minority. Only one district in my area even allowed teachers to have the option to show the President's speech (although they did allow parent to opt out of the speech).

"do think the primary issue with Obama's speech was a large over-reaction to nothing. "

Well, that's if the over-reaction did not make the president and his spin doctors change their tune, of course.

There is absolutely no evidence that the speech was changed at all. Of course, conservative commentators will continue to insist that it is only the result of the outcry that Obama didn't take his 15 minutes to read directly from Marx or Hitler.

The homeschooling case was NOT a power struggle between the government and a parent. It was a battle between two divorced parents, who together had agreed to share "joint decision-making responsibility" for the child, and whose inability to come to agreement over their daughter's schooling forced a judge to work out a solution. The government did not reach out to interfere with a parent's choices. The problem was dumped on the court.

Here's an explanation of the case, including a lengthy but easy-to-read (no legalese) excerpt of the actual trial court ruling, from The Volokh Conspiracy, one of the leading law blogs written by mostly conservative law professors. http://www.volokh.com/posts/1251405593.shtml

Notably, the guardian ad litem (an independent person appointed by the court to look out for the best interests of the child during the litigation) recommended that the daughter be sent to public school because, among other reasons reported by the guardian and cited by the court, the daughter's "relationship with her father suffers to some degree by her belief that his refusal to adopt her religious beliefs and his choice instead to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does...."

Puts a different spin on it, doesn't it?

Significantly, the court refused to limit either parent's ability to "provide [the daughter] with religious training or to share with [the daughter] their own religious beliefs."

"Before the speech, many parents had protested the way it was framed...'

--Uh, no. Many of the parents interviewed by Fox News that I heard objected to their kids "being exposed to" the President under any circumstances. They expressed fear that Pres. Obama was going to indoctrinate them into his "socialist agenda." Seriously!

Sometimes you just have to go with Rep. Barney Frank and ask in response, "on what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Regarding the accusation that Pres. Obama somehow changed the substance of his speech from Socialism 101 to "work hard and study" because of the conservative outcry, please remember, it's almost impossible to prove a negative, which is what makes such an accusation so enticing for the far right. And, in court, an advocate could never ask the question "did you change the speech?" without having a good faith basis for believing that the speech had been changed. Adam S is right: there is no such evidence.

So where does this leave the original post. The New Hampshire parents are fighting one another and the government is trying to moderate (not impose it's own will), the Quebec parent is being wildly mis-understood (at least by the Quebec government, if not by the post's author) and most people agree that Obama's speech was appropriate. What exactly is there to talk about now?

"What exactly is there to talk about now?"

In the case of Quebec: who trumps when people disagree about what moral and religious education a child should give, the State or the parents (not divided on the issue)?

(Nothing to say on Obama, I don't know what his intentions were, except that he never seems to cease speaking.)

Is it possible that (especially in religion-related cases, obviously) the church could be asked to intervene? Perhaps that would be the responsible choice, especially in what might otherwise be considered a "grey area" (for example, divorced parents). I'm not sure that Christians, in particular, should ever be encouraging the court to step into this kind of decision.

Sometimes I think that the same people who called Bush "a diabolical and malevolent mastermind/antichrist who was somehow also the stupidest man in the world" have been reincarnated into the same people who now call Obama a diabolical and malevolent mastermind/antichrist. It's one thing to disagree or to even dislike the president, but to assume that he sweats and exhales PURE EVIL will make these people look like idiots and will cost them the next election just as the same hubris and fear-mongering cost the Democrats the 2004 election. Have any of these people ever heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf?

There's a lesson in that New Hampshire case for all future parents who don't want the court to meddle with their parenting: if you're going to divorce with your unequally yoked spouse and you plan to have the court mediate on who gets to decide what's best for your child, don't expect them to decide your way is best.

I personally don't have much faith in religion classes because I (possibly wrongly) assume that they will be tainted with some bias, possibly a skeptical one. However, I do think Christians would benefit from learning about other beliefs and lifestyles (and even other Christian denominations). Christians are called to share the Gospel with the rest of the world. It's hard to do that if we know nothing except myths and caricatures about the people who inhabit it.

I think Natale has an interesting point. I am not sure I have ever heard anyone talk about not taking your spouse to court as a ramification of not suing another Christian. Certainly, part of the point of the Paul's teaching was to not invite secular authority into the making decisions for the church. But very often Christian parents fight in court over custody with amazing venom. And in many cases, there is no real question about the fitness of either parent.

I agree that disrespect for the President is at stake in this issue. If conservatives feel hurt by disrespect for Pres. Bush and are now feeling entitled to disrespect Pres. Obama I don't get it. Christians need to rise up as followers of Christ and a-political participants in our culture. Our mission is not so petty as to resort to labeling and fear mongering over this or that politician. Perhaps a more objective viewpoint is: I think Obama is a strong leader and this nation needs that to rebuilt its identity and confidence.

Morally, he is culpable...as is Bush, Clinton and all the rest. And yes, he does talk too much, or at least the media needs to back off and not report on every day of his life.

Francoise is right about the question for actual controversies being who gets to decide about how to raise/educate children. In the U.S. a long line of cases sets out the answer under our Constitution.

But to those who assert the government should let them alone to decide what to teach their children (a proposition with which I generally agree), please note that the "right" to be "let alone" by the government in your private decisions about your own family, a right, BTW, not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is pretty much the same "right" to be "let alone" by the government in making other personal decisions about your marriage, your own sexual relations, your own contraception, or about the fetus that you or a loved one is carrying, rights also not explicitly stated in the Constitution. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003) (holding Texas sodomy statute unconstitutional and citing favorably Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 390 (1923), which upheld a state court decree forbidding enforcement of a statute requiring all children to attend state public school).

See also Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): "In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra."

While I completely stand against nearly everything the President is trying to do, did not vote for him, and disagree with Him passionately on nearly every point, I do not understand why people took issue with his desire to speak to the children of the nation which elected him president. Have we really come to the point that we can't allow the President to speak to the schools? Are we so divided and hateful that we would ban the President of the United States from our own public schools? Isn't this they type of thing we were so appalled with in the behavior of the Bush haters?

The public school is public. If you don't want your children to hear from the President of the same government which is running the school they attend, there are alternatives... Take advantage of private schools or home school if you are that worried about protecting your kids from rhetoric you might potentially disagree with.

Meanwhile, if you think the worst thing your kids are hearing at school is going to come from a president's speech, you better start reading their text books. If you don't feel like you can correct what they are learning from those, you better not have them in the public school anyway. And if you do feel that you can counter those views, why could you not have done the same with any objectionable material from the speech? You could have gone through it point for point at home if you wanted to... In fact, had there been issues, it might have been a very teachable moment.

Fyi, my kids are teens in public school and my wife is a public school teacher and covert operative there for Christ. My kids, by the way, have learned to filter lies pretty well... something that will be an invaluable tool for the rest of their lives.

You can't just have respect for the President when you get the one you voted for. A nation divided will not stand. Disagree respectfully and give the guy his four years. To everything there is a season.

President Obama is the President of the United States. He was elected by a majority of the people of this country. Those who are speaking out against the President should at least tell the truth. How could you judge a speech which you have not heard or read? Some you have cried out socialism. What do you your think your house loan interest deductions are on you federal income tax are and tax exemptions to charitable organizations are? Medicaid or Medicare, Social Security. These are all government run porgrams. It not about socialism is it? Why can't we call it what it is RACISM. Christians should be very careful about judging another Christian. Jesus said that we should not judge, unless we ourselves will be judged. President Obama has received more critizism than any other President in recent memory. Let's get over it. He was duly elected. Let the President be the the President. Pray for the President that God will be his guide and stop listening to these so-called commentators, who have been demoguge in their language against the President.
Johnnie William Skinner
Knoxville, TN

It is certainly appropriate for everyone, perhaps especially school children, to respect the office of the Presidency regardless of who occupies it. The hateful rhetoric about Mr. Obama should be condemned, but it still doesn't rise to the level that Mr. Bush received. Further, Mr. Obama makes this seem political by his timing (in the middle of a free fall in his ratings and a contentious health care debate), and by changing the lesson plan that accompanied the speech. He gives the impression he's trying to slip something in before anyone realizes what's going on, and when he's "discovered" he takes a new tack, sort of like a kid getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar (while always offering a plausible explanation). He has done this with this speech to school children, with his healthcare proposals, with the "stimulus" package, etc. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama invites distrust. You don't have to be a "right wing radical" to draw that conclusion.

Given that every recent president has spoken to school children, it is a little crazy to critisize Obama for doing the same. Bush did it, Clinton did it, and Reagan did it. Why is this any different?

I'm no fan of Obama, but the hysteria and the dishonest criticisms that are coming out make those of us who disagree with him look very bad. He's still the president and thus deserves respect. I got angry at all the disrespect Bush got, and I'm angry at the same stuff with Obama. Disagree with respect, and make sure your disagreements are based on the truth and not on nonsense.

"Are we so divided and hateful that we would ban the President of the United States from our own public schools?"

It seems that we are. I could best describe it as a lack of trust. During his presidency, when George H.W. Bush addressed a High School in Washington D.C and had it nationally televised so all school children could watch it, the Democrats in Congress held hearings to see if it was legal to spend $26,000 of taxpayer money on the event, given that it was just using the school children for political purposes. (as reported on Fox news). Same reaction toward Obama.

If Bush stands for what you don't like or want, you don't trust him. If Obama stands for what you don't like or want, you don't trust him.

Maybe that is a good view to have of all politicians. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I wonder what God would say about that though? Could it be that He has a higher calling.

I am positive much more it would be much more productive–and much less annoying!–if people stopped assuming that the leaders of opposing political parties were hell-bent on spreading evil across the land a la Cobra from G.I. Joe. I believe Bush and even Obama want what's best for America; they just happen to have different ideas on what is best and how to achieve it. You don't have to agree or love either of them, but I personally am much more willing to take somebody seriously who acknowledges their humanity.

I have to admit that I'm primarily upset by this issue for one main reason: My son's middle school did not give us advance notice of this speech taking place. I came in to work this morning to an email from his school dated yesterday that arrived at 7:30 pacific time last evening. The email told us that 75% of the students had already seen the speach and the rest would be watching it today and tomorrow. We weren't given the ability to opt out until AFTER the speech took place.

While I certainly agree with the comments above that state we should respect the office of the President, and should teach our children the same, even the bible tells us to question our leaders. I don't believe that everything Obama says or does is pure evil. Although he and I certainly massively disagree on politics, it has nothing to do with race. Thankfully our country was finally able to elect someone IN SPITE OF color. However, I can't help but feel that given the fact that Obama doesn't elicit trust, his ratings are nose-diving, he's attempting to pass and has passed some of the worst legislation in history, that this speech to our children is nothing more than back-door politics and as a parent I feel that I should have been given the opportunity to say no.

Does anyone remember the name Hitler? Are you going to stand behind the antichrist for the sake of national pride and unity?

Some of the comments to this article are very dangerous, and the people better realize that it is God's plan we should follow, and not the United States or any other nation.

Satan is the god of this world, and its views, attitudes and systems are in direct opposition to Jesus Christ. We are its enemy, and there should be no compatibility there at all!

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

What I find hard to understand is how Apryl hadn't heard about the speech before it happened but she has a bunch of opinions about what is going on with the President.

I get it parents are busy. But do we really want parents to have veto power over everything that happens in a school. Should parents have veto power over math classes? We already give them veto over sex ed, evolution, drug education and presidents.

Mark (September 9th) -

You said a mouth full of the truth!! There is no need to go any further! May God have mercy on all of us, especially when we use His name to cover what's really in our hearts. A house divided will not stand. The terrorist I'm sure are having a field day over all this division!! There are people literally dying for the sake of the gospel, but here we stand day after day, news after news, talk show after talk show, complaining and complaining!! Daily complaining! As if we never before had a reason to be concerned about our kids, the economy, healthcare, and so much more. These issues have been around for ages and will continue to be around. But as Christians we are suppose to be reacting differently! Simply just putting our trust in God and sharing what makes us CHRISTLIKE. But instead, we have stirred up more DIVISION than imaginable! May God forgive us all!

Natale and Adam S -- you asked about ways for Christians to resolves legal disputes without involving the courts. Reading The Volokh Conspiracy today I happened to come across a report of this case out of the federal court in Indiana in which the court enforced a contract between a teacher and a Christian school that required any disputes to be arbitrated by a group called the Institute for Christian Reconciliation (a division of Peacemaker Ministries). Here's the court decision: http://ia311033.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.insd.21661/gov.uscourts.insd.21661.23.0.pdf

In commercial litigation (businesses disputes mostly), my area of practice, some parties agree in their contracts to submit any disputes to binding arbitration (different from mediation, in which the parties are helped to reach a compromise that they can accept or reject), rather than to have a court hear the case. The group most often chosen for such binding arbitration (binding in that the parties are bound by the decision of the arbitrator(s)), is the American Arbitration Association (AAA).

It appears from the website of Peacemaker Ministries that they have a service they say is based on Christian principles and modeled after the structure and processes of the AAA. It says they handle family law issues. I had not heard of this group before and so I can't speak to how effective they are or whether I even agree with their views of Biblical principles, but I thought this idea was interesting. Here's the FAQ's explaining the process: http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.nuIWL7MOJtE/b.5392247/k.8144/Frequently_Asked_Questions.htm

This type of "alternate dispute resolution" as it's called is highly favored by the courts since it's good public policy to allow folks to work together (or to agree on a procedure) to work out their civil or family law disputes. Anyway, thought I would pass it along.

I haven't had time to read all the comments, but as someone who is not at home in either of the two-party camps, here's my two-cents: I read Obama's speech and was pleasantly surprised overall, considering that I do not embrace his collectivist philosophy of government. I would say that about 95 to 98 percent of the speech's text would not raise any alarm bells for someone of my political persuasion (Libertarian/constitutionalist). However, there were some aspects of the speech that were troubling, including the rather blatant self-aggrandizement at the end where Obama took credit for providing schools with educational resources such as books and computers. It was my understanding that local school districts are responsible for purchasing such resources through school taxes. And even when public schools do receive federal funds, they are paid for by taxpayers, not the president. Obama's comment is likely to influence students to see the federal government, specifically the executive branch, as being responsible for their education, when in reality, education is not a delegated federal power under the U.S. Constitution.

Finally, I believe that parents are ultimately responsible for their children's education. Therefore, they have the right to opt their children out of any activity that they deem objectionable, and it's not our place to judge them.

Mr.Adam is biased and toxic in his remarks.
I am a parent and I an commanded to train
my children.The issue was not the president.
The issue was the content where assignments
were given...the content was changed when
we objected.
And I believe the president is doing alot
of talking which he is very talented to do.
He should stop speaking in abundance and
act on vital issues,e.g.there is certainly
alot of division because of him.What is he
doing to unite his people?He should be the
president of all americans.

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The President's Speech and Parental Rights

Comments

recent posts

Archives

February 2012
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The President's Speech and Parental Rights

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives