A father is in a courtroom battle, trying to keep his son from attending a Catholic high school.
The parents involved in this case are divorced. David Ryan, the father, is an atheist. The mother is a Roman Catholic. Their son, who is in the eighth grade, attends a Catholic school in Oldham County.
“This is something where it can’t be both ways,” said Ryan’s attorney, Edwin Kagin. “We think the constitution wins.”
“David feels the orientation and the indoctrination of the church school is harmful to his child,†Kagin said.
—
And his mother, I’m sure, feels the orientation and the indoctrination of the public school would be harmful to her son.
The article doesn’t say which parent has custody.
I wonder if the judge’s order simply said, perfunctorily, that the kid would continue attending [fill in the blank] school, i.e., the school he was currently attending. And the father is now up in arms claiming that the judge is ordering the kid to attend a Catholic school, when it might be that the judge was merely ordering that the kid stay where he was to avoiding adding still more disruption to the kid’s life.
The boy is in a Catholic elementary school now, according to the story. Mom wants him to go to the Catholic High School. I assume that’s one of 2 Catholic boys high schools in Louisville — both of which are outstanding. We have friends with sons at both schools and they have been very pleased. One is a bit more liberal than the other — I’d pass on it personally unless it ends up being the best fit for my son in 8 years. There are only 3 public schools in the area that can compete with these two schools and they are in Jefferson County, not Oldham County, so the boy couldn’t attend them.
I wonder if the dad is just cheap and doesn’t want to pay tuition ($8000+)?
As I work in a Catholic school, I see similar issues frequently (albeit not taken to this extreme.) Unfortunately, it usually boils down to Dad not wanting to continue to pay tuition.
“We think the constitution winsâ€
Which suggests that the custodial parent [cf. DC in #2] gets to decide.
The case becomes more difficult if the two parents have equal custodial rights. But there are still principled ways to resolve the dispute without the court in effect imposing a religious education on the child. For example, was the child baptized and raised as a Roman Catholic? Did the father previously acquiesce in the child’s attending a parochial school?
The father’s lawyer evidently relies on a state constitutional provision (quoted in the article) specifying that a man shall not be forced to send his child to a school to which he is conscientiously opposed. We’d need to know more about the purpose of that provision: e.g., does it presume an intact marriage or was it intended to govern the education of divorced parents’ children. In any event, the court should read “man” as including “woman” so as to give the mother equal rights under the state constitution. And if the father has previously acquiesced in the child’s Catholic education, that may suggest that his current objection doesn’t rise to the level of “conscience” for purposes of the constitutional provision.
Note that the religious “indoctrination” the father fears is likely to have been more effective in elementary school than it will be in high school. (Doubters might try “indoctrinating” a roomful of teenagers.) This point is consistent with the suggestion that the father’s motivations may have as much to do with money as with conscience.
Irenaeus, I do understand your point, however some of my daughter’s friends from when she was in public elementary school are now in public high school. I tutor one of these friends. Indoctrination is still going on at school as students have no real options to alternative curriculum and class materials to which parents have moral and/or religious objections. Most times faith in the classroom is met with ridicule or scorn.
Of course since we home school, I suppose folks think that we are engaging in “religious indoctrination.” Having argued with my daughter on many occasions about many things, your point is still well taken. :^)
“Pure” atheism to me is an abstraction. I always love it when an agnostic or self-described atheist comes with line about how they are capable of being just as “good” a person as any Christian. My first response is that Christians would tell you there is no such thing as a “good person” (we are all sinners), therefore we need a savior. Second response is to have them define what they mean by a “good person”. The description always sounds much like the ten commandments or the sermon on the mount (Judeo-Christian values set), which I point out. So, even a supposed atheist has values much like any Christian because they can’t help it. Its in our society and legal system. A real atheist would have no use for any values or morals for what would be the point of living good versus a bad life? I couldn’t think of any sadder “indoctrination” for any child than that bleak world.
Palagious [#8] writes:
Oooh, I love it when someone leaves him/herself open like that.
A good deal of research has shown that the two ethics summarized in the Great Commandment and Summary of the Law are fundamental survival strategies for individuals and groups, and thus are akin to natural laws:
A) Love God: One doesn’t have a lot of control over the subjective feeling of love. But you can chose to conduct your life as if you loved the Creator. That includes, among other things, facing the facts, that is to say, living in the world that God created, as opposed to the world one can ‘create’ by wishful thinking and/or self-delusion. Anyone who thinks facing the facts isn’t a fundamental survival strategy, well ….
B) Love your neighbor: It turns out that altruism is a prime evolutionary survival strategy for groups. For example, pioneer families, sports teams, military units, and prairie dogs all do better collectively — and thus are more likely to survive and reproduce individually — when group members put the group’s interests ahead of their own.
Prairie dogs, you ask? In The Moral Animal, Robert Wright tells how a prairie dog that sees a coyote is likely to stand on its hind legs and bark a warning. The noisy prairie dog itself is likely to be caught and eaten as a result. But its nearby kin have a chance to dive into their holes and escape the predator. Thus, the noisy prairie dog’s genes, as carried in its kin — including any genes providing a predisposition to barking a warning — are more likely to survive because of the barker’s actions. Over time, the prairie-dog population will increasingly show this predisposition for ‘altruism.’
So in a very real sense, the Great Commandment and Summary of the Law are almost like natural laws. Pretty clever of God, no?