Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » ONE FOR M.A.
  • ONE FOR M.A.

    Filed at 1:46 am under by dcobranchi

    The PA religious freedom / home education lawsuits just got one plaintiff larger.

    A Crawford County couple who home-school their children said the school district’s monitoring policy interferes with religious freedom.

    The federal lawsuit, by Douglas and Shari Nelson of Titusville, is similar to several lawsuits filed across the state and will be consolidated with them.

    The Nelsons sued the Titusville School District after officials in February threatened to start truancy proceedings after the Nelsons failed to submit a proposed lesson plan.

    Carl Moore, the district solicitor, said the government has a compelling interest in ensuring that children are educated. The records the district requires are religiously neutral and not intrusive, he said.

    3 Responses to “ONE FOR M.A.”


    Comment by
    maryalice
    March 19th, 2005
    at 12:04 pm

    and now it is public that we moved to the Federal court because most of the counts had to do with Constitutional issues. It is progressing at a litigation pace.


    Comment by
    Anonymous
    March 21st, 2005
    at 9:34 pm

    This is what happens when you don’t adhere to the laws of your government and you want to teach your kids how to Bake Cookies and Make Babies instead of how to make change for milk at the grocery store. As far as I am concerned if they were teaching these children what they needed to know they would have no problem turning in a lesson plan. Religion is simply a cop-out in this case.


    Comment by
    Tad
    March 22nd, 2005
    at 1:45 pm

    There is a verse in Bible that reads, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Many feel that their children are not Caesar’s, and that what and how they are taught is the responsibility and right of the parent, and is divinely ordained. In this sense, the requirement to submit lesson plans for review or to obtain “approval” of curriculim could violate a deeply held religious belief.

    There may be other underlying reasons for prosecuting a lawsuit in this case, but it seems unlikely to me that a family would go to the expense and trouble of the legal process, as a ‘cop-out,’ just so they could teach cookie baking or procreation, both of which are taught in the public school system. Nor does it make sense for a family to expose themselves to legal (and public) scrutiny necessary to establish a First Amendment case in order to avoid teaching their child to make change for milk at the grocery store.