« Sex, Gore, and the Christ Child | Main | Joseph Pearce Lectures at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary »
November 03, 2005
Bulletin from Beelzebub
"There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children. … Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students." -- Judge Asmodeus of the Fishy Fume, writing for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in denying the objections of parents to sex-questionnaires given to 1st, 3rd, and 5th graders.
One hardly knows where to begin with this. In a saner world, all those responsible for diddling the minds of the small children would be fired, and would consider themselves awfully lucky if they could get out of town without a black eye.
Note that the mysteries of human sexuality -- of that tangled jungle of love and lust, of self-sacrifice and selfishness, of desire and fear and loneliness and triumph -- are all reduced to "information," exactly as if the schools were passing out railroad timetables, or listing the state capitals, or the principle rivers of Arkansas. Of course, the word is used as a paltry cellophane cover for the corrupting of hearts and minds: and that is the case even if the schools, in an ignorant nod to what they think is traditional morality, exhort the children to delay (always for purely selfish reasons) the onset of sexual activity.
I can only conclude that if you cannot decide what to tell your children about so intimate a matter, and when, then you are not free. You are a tool of the state. There really is no way around it. The only remaining escape in the United States is to keep your children at home, or send them to one of the few private or church schools that can be trusted. But even at that, you are like a rebel suffered to remain in peace, temporarily, because the tyrant understands that for now it would not be feasible for him (her; it is fast becoming a nanny tyranny -- a tyrannanny) to do anything about it. But the totalitarian principle is in place.
Posted by Anthony Esolen at 02:08 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8345a4bf169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bulletin from Beelzebub:
» Paved With Evil Intentions from Retrospect
We hold there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 3, 2005 11:44:19 PM
» California Judge Tells Parents to Butt Out of The from The Burr in the Burgh
In California, a school district decided to administer a 79 question survey to their elementary school children. Ten of the 79 questions related to sex. [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 8, 2005 12:03:23 AM
Comments
I hadn't heard the news of yesterday's ruling, so I wasn't sure if this was "creative criticism" or a real quotation. Unfortunately, it's all true.
Posted by: Mark Drzycimski | Nov 3, 2005 2:35:01 PM
"it is fast becoming a nanny tyranny -- a tyrannanny"
Great new word! I hope it catches on.
Depressing news, though.
Posted by: Hannah | Nov 3, 2005 3:16:38 PM
"Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
Stunning. It doesn't surprise me that that's the operating principle, but I can't believe it was so baldly stated. "WE will decide what to teach your children, and you have NO RIGHT to say differently- " - it's terribly clear; he that runs may read it.
Well, count me in the rebel camp, friends, and a most intractable one I'll remain. The Ninth Circuit may be doing us all a favor by putting in such plain terms the nature of the relationship between parents and the public schools. And while the public school bureaucracy IS pretty well insulated from ordinary democratic processes, you can still vote with your kids - I have three "no" votes at home right now.
Posted by: Joe Long | Nov 3, 2005 3:21:33 PM
I may be the only lawyer to respond so far. I confess that I have not had time to read this opinion, and I acknowledge that its author is often guilty of left activism.
But keep federalism in mind. This case was trying to get a federal court to exercise control over a state school in the name of some federal constitutional right. This opinion may mean no more than that there's no such federal constitutional right. Or it may mean "we're not going to create a constitutional let parents opt their kids out of anything they find offensive. Schools will become unmanageable if we do."
I do not mean that all is well. I fully understand the frustration of serious Christian parents when the Friends of Woodstock are now in control of the public schools and want to teach safe fornication and sodomy. But that may be democracy in action. I'm increasingly convinced that the public schools are no place for Christian kids. And if a critical mass of Christian parents wake up to that, and to the surpassing importance of it, there will be some big changes coming as they withdraw not only their children, but their political support, from schools unfit for Christian habitation.
Posted by: Roger Bennett | Nov 3, 2005 5:25:11 PM
I heard mention of this story, and heard this quote, on NPR last night whilst driving home from work. It just took my breath away. I wanted to believe that I had mis-heard. Alas!
Posted by: Douglas Ian | Nov 3, 2005 7:01:16 PM
There are precedents in Supreme Court jurisprudence that provide grounds for overturning such a decision. Such a thing has been known to happen, especially in the 9th circuit. Will there be an appeal? Will it be accepted?
Oh, and by the way, consider the irony: Sex is so sacred that the mere fact of a sexual relationship constitutes a presumption of "intimacy," which is in turn protected by a zone of privacy in which the government may not meddle (Lawrence v. Texas). But information about sex is mundane, unworthy of any special consideration in the responsibility of parents for the education of their children.
Posted by: David | Nov 3, 2005 9:31:59 PM
It's real, alright. The entire opinion can be found here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement
Posted by: J. Radley | Nov 4, 2005 1:42:09 AM
I would tend to agree with Mr. Bennett that from a purely legal perspective, we may be reading more into this than is implied. And one can always hope that such legal judgement might not likely withstand the scrutiny of the US Supreme Court even as it is now constituted. But the words:
There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.
are profoundly chilling. It is one thing, and not a terribly scary thing, to tell a parent that he or she does not have an absolute right to control the curriculum of a public schooled child. It would of course be a wonderful experiment to try to do otherwise, because it would inevitably expose the inherent and a priori impossibility of "values neutral" eduction. A natural remedy, while supplies last, exists: Pull your child out. Joe has 3 "no votes" at home. I have 5 more. But the language used here goes far beyond that. It sounds like the parent may not any longer have even this final remedy: the power of the negative. And when legal remedies against such a tyranny are no longer useful, I fear we may all at least find a new and deeper respect for the 2nd Ammendment.
But 'til then, cheers!
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Nov 4, 2005 9:14:39 AM
As far as The Law is concerned Mr. Nicoloso and Mr. Bennett may be correct, but do the judges on the Ninth Circuit deserve this defense? I don't think so.
Robert Alt writes, at National Review's Corner, "The problem with Judge Reinhardt's opinion is that it quite simply does not comport with his own Substantive Due Process jurisprudence. This is a judge who has found a Substantive Due Process right to commit suicide and for prisoners to ship semen (with the facilitation of prison officials) to their girlfriends so that they can procreate while behind bars. Yet somehow when he is confronted with a case that seeks to extend in a far more modest way some of the earliest Substantive Due Process cases—cases which recognized a right to send your child to private school and preventing the state from dictating private school curricula—he finds religion. Again, I think that he reaches the right decision based on the law, but I also think that he is disingenuous when he states that the court makes this decision based on law rather than [liberal] policy preferences."
To me this shows why the law can be just as amoral as business, when you exclude the Ultimate Lawgiver.
Posted by: Daniel Crandall | Nov 4, 2005 10:58:36 AM
I'll bet, though I am not a lawyer, that the principle we want is spelled out perfectly well in such cases as Pearce vs. Society of Sisters and Yoder vs. Wisconsin. Anybody out there able to help us out here?
Posted by: Tony | Nov 5, 2005 8:36:54 AM
I'd like to have a lawyer talk about this case in relation to Pierce and Yoder, also, since I gather those are our sources for a fundamental right, on the federal level, to direct the education and upbringing of our children.
The 9th Circuit seems to be saying here that, yes, there is such a right; but it doesn't encompass a right to prevent the state from requiring that children be given *additional* information (about sex in this case, but presumably about anything else as well). The language of the holding appears to carve out a huge exception to, or modification of, the previously found parental right to direct education--one that could easily swallow the rule.
Posted by: sharon d. | Nov 5, 2005 10:23:34 AM
By "sources" in the above post I don't mean to imply that the right was created by the courts in Pierce and Yoder, but recognized by the courts.
Here's the holding language: "[T]here is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. ... Finally, we hold that the defendants’ actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose."
The first part of the holding seems to leave the door open for mandatory instruction of homeschooled or privately schooled children. I don't see any language that would limit this exception to sex ed; would any other "legitimate state purpose" (like ensuring proper 'socialization,' or protecting kids from creationism-only science, or preventing homophobia) serve as well?
Posted by: sharon d. | Nov 5, 2005 10:34:15 AM
NBC 5 will be airing my story tonight at 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. regarding the nasty, profane and inappropriate radio stations the district permits their bus drivers to play.
Warning Texas Parents! Do you know what your child listens to on the bus ride to school each day?
SHOCKING!
If anyone is interested, please email me and I will forward to you my email correspondence with the District Friay. I reported to NBC Friday morning and they were at my house at 7:00 a.m. to do the story for airing today.
This goes on in several, if not all Texas school districts. Definitely, Arlington, Mansfield, Fort Worth, and others.
Please take note parent and lets take a stand. I've also contacted The Today Show and a Texas Civil liberties law firm.
Janice Daulton
Posted by: Janice Daulton | Apr 3, 2006 9:45:40 AM
[url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-78/slots-5.html]free online slots[/url] sim slots http://www.freewebs.com/casino-78/slots-5.html [url=http://www.myhedo.com/General/0000006f.htm]instant payday loan[/url] http://www.myhedo.com/General/0000006f.htm instant payday loan free keno [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-13/keno-2.html]free keno games[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-13/keno-2.html payday advance loan [url=http://www.papillonphotos.com/_disc1/0000173b.htm]payday advance loan[/url] http://www.papillonphotos.com/_disc1/0000173b.htm cash until payday loan [url=http://www.ispor.org/disc/_disc/00000f10.htm]cash until payday loan[/url] http://www.ispor.org/disc/_disc/00000f10.htm
Posted by: payday advance loan | Jun 27, 2007 9:21:17 PM
payday loan personal [url=http://www.southwark.anglican.org/encounter/_disc1/00003bc4.htm]payday loan personal[/url] http://www.southwark.anglican.org/encounter/_disc1/00003bc4.htm [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-13/craps-6.html]how to play craps[/url] craps online http://www.freewebs.com/casino-13/craps-6.html [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-13/slots-7.html]free slots[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-13/slots-7.html free slots http://www.freewebs.com/casino-76/blackjack-1.html [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-76/blackjack-1.html]blackjack online[/url] jack black [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-76/craps-5.html]craps rules[/url] craps rules http://www.freewebs.com/casino-76/craps-5.html
Posted by: casino slots | Jun 27, 2007 9:25:52 PM
[url=http://www.mby2.com/_cusudi/0000004d.htm]loan till payday[/url] http://www.mby2.com/_cusudi/0000004d.htm loan till payday [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-76/card-stud-7.html]seven card stud[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-76/card-stud-7.html seven card stud http://www.ragazzinet.it/Forum/Animali/_disc1/00000192.htm [url=http://www.ragazzinet.it/Forum/Animali/_disc1/00000192.htm]faxless payday loan[/url] faxless payday loan [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-44/casino-5.html]casino game[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-44/casino-5.html casino gaming casino on net [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-13/casino-1.html]casino on net[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-13/casino-1.html
Posted by: las vegas casino | Jun 27, 2007 11:54:52 PM








Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004