 |
| Indiana DCS |
The parents believed that they were just in their punishments as they aligned with what the Holy Bible told them, as seen in The Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament. They stated many verses in which the Bible did so. They referenced Proverbs 13:24 - "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them", Proverbs 23:13 - "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die", Proverbs 29:15 - "A rod and a reprimand impart wisdom, but a child left undisciplined disgraces a mother", and more.
These are all direct quotes from the Bible that the couple believes endorses their ability to discipline their children using force, as the Bible not only justifies it, but encourages it. These quotes, as the couple says, is their duty to follow and discipline their children as such. It is important to know that Scott Blattert has a criminal history related to previous charges of discipling his children including aggravated battery, multiple felony charges, and multiple accounts of domestic battery resulting in the injury of someone under the age of 14.
In response to the taking of their children and their arrest, the two decided to sue on the grounds that their religious freedom had been violated. They refer to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in stating that their kids being taken from them was unconstitutional. The act, signed in 2015 by the Former Governor of Indian, Mike Pence, "prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden is a furtherance of a compelling governmental state interest". This lawsuit from the Blattert couple seeks declarative and injunctive relief from the Indiana Department of Child Services. This means that the couple would like to regain sole custody of their children with no restrictions.
 |
| Scott and Cherry Blattert |
The key issues in this case deal with religious freedom and whether or not the state has "compelling interest" and whether or not this was a true "burden" to the couple. It also deals with whether or not the couple's First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion was Violated. I believe that this a difficult case because it also deals with the slippery slope and the care of children. If we allow this type of discipline, what else will we allow because the Bible says it's okay? In all cases we must first make sure that children are never being harmed. With this mindset, my first thought is how can we allow an adults religion be an excuse to harm children? That child could have completely different religious ideals from their parents and harm to them should not be collateral for their parents beliefs. For this reason, I believe that the state has more than enough compelling interest to put the Blattert children into the care of IDCS as these kids should not be harmed due to their parents beliefs.
Additionally, I believe that asking the parents to discipline their children without aggressive force is not a burden in any respect. Although those quotes are in fact from the Bible, they are all from a book in the Old Testament entitled "Proverbs". This title inherently suggests that these sayings are strictly proverbial and most likely metaphorical; not meant to be taken literally. The state is not taking away the right for parents to discipline their children, they are prohibiting adults from harming children. This is not a burden to any parent, as they can still instill rules and discipline their children.
For the reason of this not being a true "burden" and the state having a strong compelling interest of protecting children, I believe that the children should not return to the custody of Scott and Cherry Blattert as this was not a violation of their First Amendment Right to Religious Freedom, nor did it violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It is clear from the presented facts that the Bible sanctions physical discipline as one of its teachings. However, I believe the state has compelling interest in this specific instance to step in on the basis of Scott Blattert’s violent record. While this charge was most certainly a ‘burden’ on this couple (seeing that they are facing criminal charges), setting this precedent will not elicit further burden to other devoted Christians because discipline can happen in a safer, less aggressive manner. In the Blatterts case, the state would be turning their shoulder on a potentially harmful family situation. Your final remarks are very interesting. I did not consider that the quotes cited by Scott and Cherry Blattert were metaphorically written. Despite this, they are direct words from the Holy Bible, so I do not think we can interpret them otherwise or use this as a primary counterargument. Overall, I do not think it is constitutional to prevent all forms of discipline on a child; however, the facts in this case illustrate a real harm to the children in question (and therefore, serves as compelling interest for the state to intervene). This same ruling would not likely happen in other Christian households that practice physical discipline more responsibly.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Blattert's reasoning for harming their children is from the Bible, I agree with Molly's end standpoint that parents can provide discipline to their children without harming them. With this being said, I also think they there is almost no slippery slope in this case. It is part of the government's duty to ensure that children are safe in their own homes, therefore I think the government has a sufficient, compelling state interest to take the Blattert children out of their parent's care. In a way, I believe that it might be criminal in the way that the Blattert parents are covering up harm to their children with the Bible. I believe the parents might have been doing this because of their previous criminal records.
ReplyDeleteThis case falls under the same category of Renolds V. US in my mind. There is a very compelling state interest to regulate this type of behavior as it violates peace and good order. We know according to psychology that being beaten as a child can have serious long-term mental health effects on top of being harmful in the short term. I appreciate and agree with Molly's point about substantial burden. The government deciding how people can parent their children is an incredibly contentious subject and so it must be handled with care. Like Molly said, there are other forms of discipline and so it is not a substantial burden to restrict this type of "discipline." Additionally, I want to build on Molly's point of the slippery slope. the bible also says that we should stone women who have sex out of wedlock and that people who work on Sunday should get the death penalty. There is precedent for regulating behavior that is prohibited in the bible especially when it comes to physical harm done to another person. There is no clearer example of when behavior should be regulated than in this case.
ReplyDeleteThis is clearly not a violation of the parent's freedom of religion. There is a compelling state interest to make sure that children are not having their faced caved in by a glue stick. A person's right to free exercise of their religion ends when it infringes on someone else's rights, and it is clear that children have the right to not be abused. If the state did not regulate this action, those children could grow up to have psychological problems, and possibly physical ones. Therefore, these restrictions on free exercise are necessary.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the couple's freedom of religion was not violated and there was a compelling state interest to ensure the safety of the children. As we have seen in many cases before, it is okay to believe but that does not give people the right to act on those beliefs. Additionally, there is a compelling state interest to protect children because we know there can be severe psychological long term damage when children are subjected to physical abuse from parents/guardians. I understand that there is concern about the government overstepping and trying to control how people parent their children. This is a valid concern, but the constitutional issue at hand deals with the parent's right to free exercise and there is no violation of their right to free exercise in this case.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the ranking of rights, that being safety from harm for children and free exercise of religion for parents, comes into play. No reasonable individual wishes harm on children nor do they tolerate the usage of religion as an excuse. This is one of the most clear-cut in regards to whether an action constitutes free exercise as child abuse remains as grounds for the state to step in no matter the individual liberty of the parent. Sure, the 'slippery slope' argument of telling parents how to parent their children is a concern, but such a minor one given how many other times the government abridges parental rights for the safety of minors. I agree with the opinion of both the court and yours in that child 'disciplining' is not protected by the First Amendment.
ReplyDelete