The First Amendment specifically protects the freedom of speech and also the freedom of worship. However much she may disagree with a family holding a strict patriarchal view of Christianity, the government has no right to interfere in their beliefs.

I found the whole discussion of abortion in the paper to be odd. It didn’t seem to have any relevance except in revealing the political bias of the author!

Compelling interest? Whatever that could mean in this day and age in a court of law.
Just as an example, Wikipedia has this entry concerning the 1st Amendment: In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that “unduly burdens the practice of religion” without a compelling interest, even though it might be “neutral on its face,” would be unconstitutional.
If families are unduly burdened jumping through hoops that “public actors” (government;as I understand the terminology used in this paper), then their hooks won’t hold in court. Theoretically, of course.
Sorry to catch this so late. Glad you wrote something up.

Thanks for stopping by! I appreciate your comments and liked what I saw of your blog! It was just a quick peek, but I’ll be back next week after the insanity of this article I’m working on is through!

Her perceptions seem based in stereotypes more than anything. I know people like that exist…but have we shut down the public schools for their proven failure to consistently deliver a basic education? Newark, NJ is currently graduating 30% of its students…at a cost of $1.3 million per student if you count the money spent on dropouts as wasted!

As to the rest…laws exist in most states which allow a family to be reported. Is that common? No, but neither are these extreme cases. And what happens when the state fails children? Nothing. Well, actually we throw more money at it and extend the hours students are forced to sit in a situation that doesn’t work, take away recess, stop letting them talk at lunch and pile on more homework.

I wonder, though, whether the people of the United States today are willing to give up their freedoms for the sake of creating the “tolerant,” “free” society they think they want. Far too many people in America are easily led wherever the national media wants them to go. They believe what they see on television or read in the paper, without stopping to consider whether those things are true or what the ultimate consequences of those beliefs will be. The state can have only the powers granted it by the people, but if the people grant it power to restrict their freedom, then it has that power until the people as a whole rise up to stop it.

I have bookmarked your site and added it to my blogroll. Thanks so much for your clear, perceptive post.

My only disagreement is really in your definition of conservative. While many do attempt to force their ideals on others, that isn’t what makes someone conservative. Conservatism is generally about holding to more traditional values.

I really like this essay by Russell Kirk and it defines pretty well what I believe and why I consider myself conservative rather than libertarian.

As far as the author’s concerns she raises, I don’t substantially disagree. She continually points out the extreme. And there aren’t very many of us who support those views of women, etc. (hence the term extreme).

What I substantially disagree with is the notion that the parent is somehow acting on the state’s behalf. That is so backwards to our founding political philosophy it is insane.

You can find anyone with a degree to say about anything you want, and I don’t know how seriously this paper will be taken. But our society is moving steadily in that direction, so I doubt it will be long. Right now, this sort of state control is only theorized, but that is where it begins.

It is also very much in line with CEDAW, which we signed but never ratified. And while that is another document which on its own does not necessarily raise too many concerns, the way it is being applied is disconcerting to me.

(And I don’t believe that we have a “right” to childcare, health care, etc. in the sense that society is obligated to pay for it. I have a very different definition of what a right is.

I agree with the ideals cited in the excerpted portion of the article: sex equality (the idea that neither men nor women are inherently inferior or superior to one another), gender role fluidity (the idea that a man doesn’t have to be the sole source of financial income for the family and doesn’t have to drink bear and belch all the time to be a man and a woman doesn’t have to sit at home barefoot and pregnant knitting doilies all the time to be a woman) and critical rationality (the idea that we should think for ourselves versus blindly following everything we’re told), but I for one would never attempt to force another to believe those things. Now I’d be happy to explain why I believe those things to anybody who cares to know, but it’s fundamental to my core that (so long as they are not hurting others) everyone should have the right to do, think, and believe as they wish.