(from Marty Lederman) re: spiritual treatment exceptions

[David M. Wagner]

Jim Dwyer writes:


        In addition, in my view adults have no right to custody of a child,
and the
state may, and in my view must as a matter of the child's right, condition
any adult's enjoyment of the privilege of custody as to a particular child
on the adult's willingness to sacrifice his or her right not to assist and
willingness to commit to helping that child obtain medical care should the
child become ill or injured (and obtain other benefits, such as a good
secular education).

By "good secular education," do you mean:
        (a) education that is both "good" and "secular," or
        (b) education that is thorough in its inculcation of secularism?

If (a), if the education in question satisfies the "good" prong, why must
it additionally satisfy the "secular" prong?

If (b), is it not illiberal to privilege secularism over other philosophies
that might form the basis of an education?  Is it not the "deal" offered by
liberalism that it will abstain from privileging any worldview (and
effectuate this abstention by devolving worldview choices down to
sub-governmental units), in return for religious believers abstaining from
seeking public privileges for their worldview(s)?

If the answer is that worldview choices, under liberalism, are devolved
from government to individuals *rather than* to families, I would refer
back to Rick Duncan's remark that such a distinction would inherently
require governmental policing, and would therefore amount to a resumption
by government of a power supposedly ceded under the liberal "deal."


David M. Wagner
Regent University School of Law
1000 Regent University Dr.  RH 352K
Virginia Beach, VA  23464
ph. 757-226-4697
fax 757-226-4329