It used to be that people were marginalized if they weren't good Christians. Now they're marginalized because they are good Christians. Here's the article from OneNewsNow:
A Christian homeschool girl in New Hampshire has been ordered into government-run public school for having "sincerely held" religious beliefs.
An attorney working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has filed motions with a New Hampshire court, asking it to reconsider its order to send the 10-year-old homeschooled girl into public school.
According to ADF allied attorney John Anthony Simmons, the court acknowledges that the girl in question is doing well socially and academically, but he adds that the court went too far when they determined that the girl's Christian faith was a "bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews."
Simmons contends that parents have a "fundamental right to make educational choices for their children." However, the girl's parents divorced in 1999, and she is now living with her mother who has been homeschooling the child since first grade. As part of the schooling, the young girl has been attending supplemental public school classes.
As part of parental custody hearings, a court-appointed guardian stated that the child reflected her mother's "rigidity" on questions of faith and added that girl's best interest would be served by exposure to a public school setting.
According to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, home-based education is an enduring American tradition and right. ADF concludes, based on that statement, that there is no legitimate legal basis for this latest court ruling.
OneNewsNow has contacted ADF attorney Simmons for further comment and is awaiting a response.
Comments
Can you show the court's opinion here? As with many stories originating from the AFA, there are clearly some elements being left out, to the point that their accounts often cross over into outright lies.
This was part of a custody hearing, right? Why would a child be ordered to attend public school? The obvious answer would seem to be that it was at the request of the father.
Why did they leave that part out, unless they're trying to convey something short of the truth?
OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you show the court's opinion here? As with many stories originating from the AFA, there are clearly some elements being left out, to the point that their accounts often cross over into outright lies.
This was part of a custody hearing, right? Why would a child be ordered to attend public school? The obvious answer would seem to be that it was at the request of the father.
Why did they leave that part out, unless they're trying to convey something short of the truth?
the court acknowledges that the girl in question is doing well socially and academically,
If shes doing well there is no reason to remove her. One should only be removed if one's Academics are in question..
they determined that the girl's Christian faith was a "bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews."
This Judge is clearly anti christian and has over stepped his bounds.
Had A Chance to look over Court Papers myself, ADF as ALWAYS, posted them on their website. *hint hint Steve*, and im just shocked at the blatent Violation of the constitution here. The father and daughter clearly do not share the same faith, however according to the paper's signed by the justice, the father only "echoed" the statements of that anti american Michael Garner. Seems its clear.. The court violated the constitution and so did mr garner.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!