Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christian Girl Ordered To Attend Public School: Mom's Religious Views Ripped By Court
The Washington Times ^ | September 03, 2009

Posted on 09/03/2009 9:03:31 PM PDT by Steelfish

Christian girl ordered to attend public schoolMom's religious views ripped by court

By Julia Duin

A New Hampshire court ordered a home-schooled Christian girl to attend a public school this week after a judge criticized the "rigidity" of her mother's religious views and said the 10-year-old needed to consider other worldviews as she matures.

Ever since the judge's ruling came out in July, the case has aroused the interest of home-schooling groups nationwide, whohave asked why a court has the power to decide whether someone's religious views are too extreme.

The girl's mother, Brenda Voydatch, has engaged the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., to contest the ruling, in which the judge granted a request by the girl's father, Martin Kurowski, that the girl go to a public school.

On Tuesday, the girl, Amanda Kurowski, started fifth grade at an elementary school in Meredith, N.H., under court order. Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: aclumia; activistcourts; antichristian; christians; christianstudents; homeschool; judicialactivism; ruling

1 posted on 09/03/2009 9:03:32 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

So much for separation of church and state....


2 posted on 09/03/2009 9:08:23 PM PDT by freebilly ( No wonder all the left has a boner for Obama.... There's "Cialis" in "SoCIALISt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly
Indeed. "Judge" Lucinda Sadler needs to be removed from the bench "by any means necessary," to quote the morally diseased skank's fascist friends.
3 posted on 09/03/2009 9:11:47 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

We live in interesting times. An opportunity to reassert our constitutional religious freedoms and hopefully revisit the idea of church and state.

This judge hopefully will find he has over reached.


4 posted on 09/03/2009 9:11:51 PM PDT by swheats (Time is the greatest equalizer. Seek God in America Again. Be fruitful and multiply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

And it makes you wonder how long it will be before the first shot is fired. So sad.


5 posted on 09/03/2009 9:12:33 PM PDT by luv2ndamend (May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. — Samue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Nice going ‘Dad’. Get your daughter put in a public school. That’ll show your ex-wife.


6 posted on 09/03/2009 9:13:01 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

First Amendment: REVOKED!


7 posted on 09/03/2009 9:13:13 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.

Or, Lucinda, you sorry sack of excretement, maybe she actually BELIEVES it and holds dear those religious beliefs. Who on earth is being the intolerant one?

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!


AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY

A PETITION ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RESTORATION

8 posted on 09/03/2009 9:13:37 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
This is a sad situation.

Broken home, broken lives. And now the court is dictating to the custodial parent how the child should be educated.

I'd really like to know more about the parents and the particular faith before I commented on this.

But I can tell you for sure without knowing more than I do, that I don't like the court deciding the educational avenue the parents should have a right to choose for their children.

It just doesn't sound like the US of A that I grew up in.

9 posted on 09/03/2009 9:19:33 PM PDT by Hillarys nightmare (So Proud to be living in "Jesus Land" ! Don't you wish everyone did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The Puritans sailed from England bound for the New World in search of the opportunity to have freedom to practice their (choice of) religion.


10 posted on 09/03/2009 9:22:19 PM PDT by Rembrandt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

if the father said he wanted her to go to a mainstream private school, I could understand. But don’t make kids the ward of the state.


11 posted on 09/03/2009 9:24:18 PM PDT by ari-freedom (Fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
The ruling also said Amanda told a counselor she was distressed by her father's refusal to accept her religious beliefs and that "his choice to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does."

Amanda really does have the sperm donor pegged.

12 posted on 09/03/2009 9:25:24 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (I am only ONE of many real Jim Thompsons, yet I am ONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

If the mother in this situation simply moved out of state would it be possible to escape this order?


13 posted on 09/03/2009 9:27:41 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Would she have made the same ruling with a Muslim family - I think not.


14 posted on 09/03/2009 9:43:59 PM PDT by JMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys nightmare

The court is not “dictating to the custodial parent how the child should be educated.” As I understand it, both parents in this case share joint legal custody (though the mother maintains primary physical custody). The two custodial parents disagree on how to educate the child and, as part of their divorce, agreed to submit such disagreements to the court.

This isn’t a church-state issue, and it isn’t an issue of the court stepping in unnecessarily to tell a religious parent how to raise her child. It is a dispute between two divorced parents, decided by the court on terms agreed to by both parents.


15 posted on 09/03/2009 9:46:57 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall

Why do you call him the “sperm donor”? To me, this line makes it look like Amanda’s mother is trying to use her religious teaching to turn Amanda against her father.


16 posted on 09/03/2009 9:48:15 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.

I suppose this Judge also thinks its a bad thing that a parent would want to keep their child free from exposure to drugs, ebola, plague, and other 'opportunities'...
Yes, the mother wants to bring up her daughter in a Christian environment and she doesn't appreciate people who would want to attack her beliefs at her young age. How unreasonable...
God save us from these judges who want to play god...

17 posted on 09/03/2009 9:50:50 PM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

AND WHO DECIDES WHEN THE COURT’S VIEWS ARE TOO EXTREME???


18 posted on 09/03/2009 9:54:01 PM PDT by seawolf101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

The same prohibition on making Christianity (or a demonination of Christianity) the established State religion also prohibits the State from restricting that free exercise of a Christian faith.

By REQUIRING her child to be “exposed” to other faiths, they are seeking to “delegitimize” the faith.

The State can only make this imposition if they expose ALL children in public schools to ALL faiths.

This is judicial tyranny and against parental rights and religious liberty.


19 posted on 09/03/2009 9:58:36 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Kennedycare?Recall that "Animal Farm" begins with a Socialist Revolution to honor Big Major's legacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: El Cid

True, the mother wants to bring her daughter up in a Christian environment. But, the father wants the child to be exposed to other views. Why is the mother’s opinion any more valid?

This isn’t a case where the judge is playing god. This is a case where the judge was deciding a dispute between two divorced parents. It’s an unfortunate case, because there can be no compromise (mother wants to homeschool, nothing else; father wants public school, nothing else; there’s no middle ground), but it’s not a case of a judge overstepping her authority...


20 posted on 09/03/2009 9:59:43 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

The revolution is already underway. The media cheered in January 2009 and called it another “velvet revolution” only this time instead of going AWAY from Communism (as the Czechs did) our Constitution is being thrown out without a shot.


21 posted on 09/03/2009 10:00:42 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Kennedycare?Recall that "Animal Farm" begins with a Socialist Revolution to honor Big Major's legacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

No, this is not judicial tyranny against parental rights. This is judicial deciding of a dispute between two divorced parents who both have parental rights, but disagree on how to educate their child. There was no “imposition” - the judge was deciding a dispute.

If the judge had decided the other way, would you be upset because she “forced” the child to attend religious school against the wishes of the child’s parent (father)?


22 posted on 09/03/2009 10:01:56 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
This was what was best for the Father not what was best for the Child. I have been through this from top to botom so do not tell me all of the legal mumble jumble. It will destroy the Child.
23 posted on 09/03/2009 10:12:41 PM PDT by easternsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
I don't know the legal rights involved - although I'd suspect the parent who has custody AND the child involved would take precedent. The judge's comment:

Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.

is what I found galling. And yes, the judge is playing 'god'.
"She has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view..." ???
What the heck is that about? Adam allowed Eve to 'seriously consider another point of view' back in the Garden a long time ago ... and that worked out wonderfully for all of us...
If the judge wants to play anti-Solomon and cut the baby in half due to the legal custody arguments - that's one thing. Interjecting that being raised in a Christian environment is inadequate because the person is not exposed to enough lies that might change their mind - is entirely something else...

24 posted on 09/03/2009 10:18:11 PM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JMS

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Hold your calls. We have a winner!


25 posted on 09/03/2009 10:25:03 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary,conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: easternsky

I would argue that teaching a child that her father doesn’t love her because he doesn’t share the mother’s religious beliefs is a lot more harmful to the child than anything the judge did here.


26 posted on 09/03/2009 10:30:32 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: El Cid
"What the heck is that about?"

Well, it looks like that is "about" the fact that the mother claimed that she wanted to homeschool the child in order to pass on her Christian values (I don't know how it's a Christian value to teach a child that her father does not love her because he has different religious beliefs - that looks like a mother who is using "Christian" teaching to turn her child against her father after a divorce). The father, on the other hand, wanted to expose the child to other views.

The judge didn't "interject that being raised in a Christian environment is inadequate because the person is not exposed to enough lies that might change their mind," the judge stated that being exposed solely to Christian teachings/worldviews is inadequate in this case because the girls father wanted her exposed to other worldviews.

Just because you believe & agree with the mother's Christian teachings does not mean that the father has no rights to make decisions regarding the education of his child. If the judge had decided otherwise, don't you think the father would be arguing that the judge forced the child to be homeschooled and taught only Christian beliefs, against the father's will? Why would that be OK if this is not?

27 posted on 09/03/2009 10:37:43 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

YOU have no idea what that Judge just did to that Child, unless you have walked in the shoes thats pretty bold statements.


28 posted on 09/03/2009 10:39:03 PM PDT by easternsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Aim Small Miss Small
29 posted on 09/03/2009 10:40:46 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
I'm not at all surprised this judge was a female.

And I'm guessing the divorced father turned homo?

30 posted on 09/03/2009 10:47:42 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

It’s a custody thing with the mom wanting home schooling and the dad wanting public schooling. The mom and dad apparently agreed to let the court decide, and the court ruled for the dad.

The troubling thing to me is the appointed guardian’s refusal to even look at the home school curriculum because it was Christian. That’s just wrong. How can you be the appointed guardian if you don’t even want to see the facts of the situation?


31 posted on 09/03/2009 10:49:50 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
But, the father wants the child to be exposed to other views. Why is the mother’s opinion any more valid?

because there is nothing in a public school worth being "exposed to."

32 posted on 09/03/2009 10:50:00 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

I would argue that teaching a child that her father doesn’t love her because he doesn’t share the mother’s religious beliefs is a lot more harmful to the child than anything the judge did here.

*************

Many people simply will not believe that a parent would be so evil as to say that to a child. It does happen. It was done to my stepdaughter, whose “Christian” mother told her, over and over, that if her father really loved her he’d “become a Christian” (read: join MY church). The child was having recurring nightmares in which Daddy was in hell, being burned in the fire, and she couldn’t help him. This was when she was only six years old.

Her “Christian” mother lost custody before the damage was too severe for my stepdaughter to overcome, thank God.

I sincerely hope that is not what is happening in this case.


33 posted on 09/03/2009 10:57:53 PM PDT by Hepsabeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Impeach the judge.


34 posted on 09/03/2009 11:11:08 PM PDT by karnage (worn arguments and old attitudes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
I would argue that teaching a child that her father doesn’t love her because he doesn’t share the mother’s religious beliefs is a lot more harmful to the child than anything the judge did here.

You have absolutely no evidence to support the claim that the mother taught this to the child, rather than the child formulating this conclusion on her own, which is actually quite logical and reasonable if one assumes the truth of Christianity. Further, Amanda made reference to the father's acceptance of her *own* religious beliefs, not the mother. Further still, if you read the quote, Amanda doesn't deny that her father loves her. It is however the spiritual extent of that love that she questions, and rightly so if we again assume the truth of Christianity.

This little girl seems to understand things much better than some adults...you included.

35 posted on 09/04/2009 12:12:57 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
as someone who went through a bit of this when my ex wife left me for an old rich Jewish guy.

she pretended to be Jewish (never converted just lied) and insisted my two girls with her go to Temple and reject Christendom which had been their faith for 7-8 years just to please him and sate his parents (that funky tribe thingie)

anyhow , my dad and I decided nope, you have pegged the wrong goyim on this one so we fought back and in a courtroom in Miami where everyone was Jewish but me including even the bailiff and court reporter, the Judge (Gertner?) ruled in my favor and said they could go to what ever service with whomever parent...I had never objected to them going to Temple ...I have been to some Seders ...including some high Holy day ones with real Jews...not secular wannebes.

The clincher was when he asked my ex if she knew what Purim was and she looked like a deer in the headlights but I knew...lol....plus she was very non Jewish looking and Jews are anything but stupid...they know their own when they see them same as I do a good Southron the second they open their gator

but my point is that I can't see the reasoning behind stripping the precedence of the kid going to Christian school and if the mom has primary residence custody then often that would give her more juice in that matter especially if she is paying for it.

epilogue for fellow travelers: my ex and he split, both girls have been with me now for years and one is born again and going to law school and the other...the wilder bohemian one does have good work ethic and is going to mortician school as of last week in Manhattan...don't ask me why?...the money and flexibility...she wanted to be a doctor..lol...2/3rds of funeral home folks are now chicks...i looked it up

36 posted on 09/04/2009 12:30:32 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

New Hampshire now has something in common with Nazi Germany. Germany got that anti-homeschool law from Adolph Hitler and KEEPS IT!


37 posted on 09/04/2009 3:54:17 AM PDT by RoadTest ( Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols - Psalm 97:12a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Mizz Lucinda Sadler is misnamed ... “Lucifer” is more like it.


38 posted on 09/04/2009 3:57:36 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JMS
Would she have made the same ruling with a Muslim family - I think not.

Of course not. As I've said before, Muslims in the USA are very good at defending their faith from this kind of BS. We should learn from them.

39 posted on 09/04/2009 5:44:55 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
RE: 27

I'm only going by the posted text of the article.

Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.

To paraphrase: 'Because the young girl, Amanda, has a strong belief in Christianity, the Judge, Lucinda Sadler, takes this as evidence that she has not had the opportunity to consider any other points of views'...I.e., The Judge has effectively said, 'IF Amanda is a committed Christian - she must be nuts - because surely she would not have such a strong commitment if she were exposed to other world views...'
Its called being born again; something which the Judge would not understand.
Yes, this response from the Judge strikes me as something fitting from a Judge in Saudi Arabia, but not one in America.

The father my think its a fine thing to subject her daughter to a den of snakes, and the mother believes otherwise. I'm obviously on the mother's side -- but my objection to this article is to the Judge's remarks.

40 posted on 09/04/2009 7:00:24 PM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

“This isn’t a case where the judge is playing god. This is a case where the judge was deciding a dispute between two divorced parents. It’s an unfortunate case, because there can be no compromise (mother wants to homeschool, nothing else; father wants public school, nothing else; there’s no middle ground), but it’s not a case of a judge overstepping her authority...”

The parents already were compromising before Judge Sadler made her decision. A quote from this article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2327964/posts

“He[mother’s lawyer] contends that the mother enrolled Amanda in three public school courses and got her involved in extra-curricular activities such as gymnastics and softball in an effort to acknowledge the father’s concerns.”

So the girl is both homeschooled and in public school at the same time(in addition to extra-curricular activities). But the father wants it his way, no homeschooling at all, no compromise.


41 posted on 09/05/2009 1:46:00 PM PDT by Mister Fleas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
new Hampshire is the state that claims to have the motto, "Live free or die" and the place http://freestate.org/ says they are using as a place for free thinkers to congregate.

they picked the wrong state their motto changed to, "better to be red then dead."

42 posted on 09/05/2009 2:53:14 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson