From In re Marriage of V.I. Balashov:
With one exception, the parenting plan provides that major decisions regarding each child — including such matters as education, nonemergency health care, and travel outside the United States — are to be made jointly. The one exception stated in the plan is for religious upbringing. The plan assigns this area of decision-making solely to Vicki: “As to the mother’s ability to make sole decisions regarding religious upbringing, the court finds that the father does not have a religion, and the mother has brought the children up in the Orthodox Christian religion without objection from the father.” Dimitrichallenges this limitation on his decision-making authority and asks that it be stricken from the parenting plan.To protect parents’ respective constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, Washington courts hold that a parent’s decision-making authority with respect to religious upbringing may not be restricted unless there is “a substantial showing of actual or potential harm to the children from exposure to the parents’ conflicting religious beliefs.” The court emphasized that “religious beliefs” should be interpreted in the broad sense of “world view” and that a parent’s lack of religious belief receives the same amount of protection as any particular religious belief.
Here, the trial court made no finding of actual or potential harm that would result from exposing the children to conflicting religious beliefs. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court erred in granting Vicki sole decision-making authority with respect to the religious upbringing of the children. The parenting plan must be amended to give both parties joint authority on the same basis as was done with other major decisions.
Sounds right to me.
Chris Travers says:
One note:
Washington has fairly strong freedom of religion and conscience protections so this isn’t really a surprise.
In another recent case, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a church had a right to host a tent city on its property since the city declined to process the request for a permit out of hand (even despite a contract to the contrary). The rule articulated by the court was that the city could request changes to plans and require permits, but had to actually process the request and try to find a mutually acceptable solution. As the Washington State Supreme Court has said in the past, it is OK to require a permit, but not OK to refuse to issue one.
February 4, 2010, 7:36 pmChris Travers says:
In case that comment isn’t clear, the Washington State Constitution provides “absolute” freedom of religion and conscience, except as involve licentious acts or acts inconsistent with the peace and security of the state (this creates freedom of conscience defences for many crimes). The closer the restriction gets to religious beliefs the more governmental scrutiny is involved.
However, two other things are also worth noting:
The same section provides an extremely strong separation of church and state (for example, state scholarships cannot be used to fund education at religious schools, nor can any state money go to ANY religious program for any reason) with a narrow exception for prison chaplains and the like.
Finally there is an absolute ban on tests of faith regarding not only serving an elected office and governmental employment but also serving on a jury.*
* I don’t know if this precludes striking jurors on a capital case due to religious objections to capital punishment. I haven’t been able to find out.
Given these three sets of protections, it isn’t surprising at all that the court would require a strong showing before getting involved in religious debates between divorcing parents.
February 4, 2010, 7:55 pmSwan Trumpet says:
Regarding custody decisions – the issue at hand isn’t about protecting the parents’ rights to free exercise of religion; it’s about what’s in the best interests of the children.
In this case, the children were being raised in the Orthodox Christian faith without objection from the atheist father until recently. It seems clear that the interests of the children rest with the parent who will continue to provide them with the moral and spiritual guidance they’ve become accustomed to receiving through their faith.
February 4, 2010, 8:12 pmAnon21 says:
But a court–a state actor–is no more free to take a position about what is “best” for the child in the realm of religion than it is to decide what is “best” for the child’s political upbringing. Neutrality is the required posture, and therefore the trial court did clearly err in departing from neutrality and giving preference to the religious parent.
February 4, 2010, 8:19 pmChris Travers says:
Washington State Courts, as mentioned in the opinion, generally avoid getting in religious arguments, and they require a fairly strong showing before getting involved.
February 4, 2010, 8:28 pmGeorge says:
Except that the family court never actually determines the best interest of the children. That is just a meaningless buzz phrase that is used to defend the judge’s prejudices.
Favoring one parent’s religion seems particularly outrageous, but the family court judges apply their prejudices to favor one parent over the other for all sorts of other outrageous things.
February 4, 2010, 8:38 pmSwan Trumpet says:
Courts are free to consider all factors relevant to the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being. Neutrality is certainly important, but it’s a moot issue here since there’s nothing neutral about depriving the children of the religion they’ve already become accustomed to practicing.
February 4, 2010, 8:39 pmChris Travers says:
As I say, it is a matter of Constitutional law of Washington State, and, unfortunately a broader issue of 1st Amendment rights.
I am actually in favor of this strong rule because it provides a large number of protections to everyone. Among other things, it provides a freedom of conscience defence to many crimes, it provides permission for churches to break municipal codes when the city is refusing to accommodate them, and it ensures that parents have a right to try to teach their kids how to live a virtuous life as they see it without state welfare workers getting in the way.
This is just one application of a much larger rule because Washington’s Constitution, since 1904, has provided a great deal more religious protection than the federal Constitution.
February 4, 2010, 8:43 pmAnon21 says:
But the order granting both parents joint control over religious upbringing doesn’t deprive the children of anything. It simply leaves it to the parents to negotiate between themselves, with reference to their children’s wishes, what the best thing is. Would it really be better for the court to impose its opinion of what’s best for the children’s spiritual development?
February 4, 2010, 8:48 pmChris Travers says:
Bah… typo above:
Should read:
February 4, 2010, 8:52 pmAnthony says:
There is no evidence here that the children are to be ‘deprived’ of anything, just that decisions should be made jointly. There is no reason to suppose that the children were not previously exposed to the father’s atheism.
February 4, 2010, 8:56 pmChris Travers says:
Swan Trumpet:
One area I will agree is that this is not necessarily religious discrimination here. However, per Washington State precedents, it was procedurally improper.
February 4, 2010, 9:01 pmChris Travers says:
I think Swan Trumpet’s point is that the court should have been able to consider the existing relationship of the children to religion. Presumably, Swan Trumpet would feel the same way if an atheist was granted sole decision making powers over the objection of a Lutheran parent just because the family wasn’t going to church regularly. The basic issue though is that the Washington State Constitution doesn’t really allow this without a showing of clear danger for harm.
This is designed to prevent judges from making such decisions based on personal prejudices. For example, discrimination against atheists in other states is not uncommon (see EV’s excellent paper on the subject). I have argued in the past that too much leeway is a bad thing because there are no reasonable limits. For example, suppose two parents divorce. The woman is a Lutheran who goes to church every day. The man sometimes accompanies her but is also a member of the Church of Satan. Should the court be able to argue that membership in such an organization is evidence against the father’s fitness to make decisions on behalf of the child? I don’t think so.
(I know several members of the Church of Satan personally and all are very compassionate and moral people.)
Worse, where does this stop? Can a court consider political advocacy? If one parent advocates drug legalization can a court use this in the absence of other evidence to conclude that the parent shouldn’t be primary decision maker because in the judge’s estimation, exposure to pro-legalization views will make the kids more likely to do drugs? Should parents who are considering divorce be careful about what political causes they take up?
I really think that the best interest of the child need to be limited to areas outside generally protected Constitutional matters.
February 4, 2010, 9:08 pmreadery says:
If the Framers had wanted to protect the free abstract holding of general world views as distinct from the free exercise of religion, surely they would have said so.
February 4, 2010, 9:53 pmDennis N says:
I’m not sure the degree of practice has been established, nor should the court consider it. What is to say the childrens putative practice of religion is superior to their father’s practice of atheisn, a competing religion? The court just can’t get ion the middle of that and remain neutral.
o/~ {Whistling The Orange and the Green} o/~
February 4, 2010, 10:09 pmMark N. says:
The framers of the Washington State constitution did use a broader formulation than “free exercise of religion”, instead referring to an “absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment”.
February 4, 2010, 10:23 pmSwan Trumpet says:
I appreciate all the interesting and informed comments. I read the case, and found other issues that make the Court of Appeals overturning a prior decision disturbing. In spite of the father’s unemployment and the mother being both the primary breadwinner as well as the children’s primary caretaker, the father was known to be excessively controlling and abusive. Here’s more:
“The abusive use of conflict by the father towards the mother, in
front of the children, which creates the danger of serious damage
to the children’s psychological development. Specifically, and
without limitation, (1) the father’s chronic role-modeling during the
marriage emotionally dominated the mother and gave her little
respect as a co-equal member of the family and as a parent, and
(2) the father has refused to negotiate fairly and openly with the
mother regarding visitations that were not explicitly spelled out in
the temporary parenting plan.”
It was the children’s mother who sought divorce and the mother who is remarrying. All this seems to add up to the father’s sudden objection to his children’s religious education as being part of a vindictive campaign against his former wife.
February 4, 2010, 10:37 pmChris Travers says:
The Framers of the Washington State Constitution did so.
February 4, 2010, 11:27 pmChris Travers says:
Well, in most matters, the trial court basically said the father had a year to work with the mother on these things or else she could become the primary decision maker on everything. The appellate court ruled that the issue of religious upbringing was handled improperly but otherwise everything is the same. Presumably the appellate decision changes “most matters” into “all matters” by treating the religious upbringing the same as the other areas on the parenting plan.
If the guy can’t get his act together she can still take over. I don’t really see what the issue is from that perspective.
February 4, 2010, 11:30 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
And I’ll bet they have a totally awesome youth activity bus. Something like this maybe:
February 4, 2010, 11:42 pmhttp://image.sporttruck.com/f/16630465/0903st_12_z+2008_sema_show+munster_mobile.jpg
Jay says:
Chris Travers–
February 4, 2010, 11:44 pmSo the Washington State Constitution forbids any entanglement of religion and state, except that religious views are treated as more important than other kinds of views as defenses to crimes and in justifying churches breaking zoning rules? I’m not sure that’s very consistent, really.
Chris Travers says:
Religion is defined very broadly in Washington State Constitutional law. As per the case at hand it includes things like “world view.” So with such a broad definition, I don’t see any problem at all.
February 5, 2010, 12:00 amRicardo says:
Here’s the text of the Constitutional provision:
It seems pretty clear to me. The Constitution forbids “entanglement” between church and state to the extent it concerns use of public money or property for the use of a given religion. At the same time it does privilege “religious sentiment, belief and worship” as long as those beliefs do not violate public safety or require the commission of “acts of licentiousness.”
There’s clearly a sliding scale rather than an absolute answer to the question of how far the state can go in prohibiting practices associated with certain religions. Washington errs on the side of imposing a very high burden on the state while the First Amendment as interpreted imposes a much lower burden. It’s not an issue of consistency so much as an issue of where exactly to draw the line.
February 5, 2010, 12:03 amGeorge says:
What’s left? The rest of the opinion accuses the father of “chronic role-modeling”, whatever that is. Doesn’t he have a constitutional right to do that?
February 5, 2010, 12:31 amWashington Court of Appeals Overturns Apparent Discrimination Against a Non-Religious Parent | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] the original: Washington Court of Appeals Overturns Apparent Discrimination Against a Non-Religious Parent [...]
February 5, 2010, 1:02 amMike McDougal says:
Washington sounds like an excellent place.
February 5, 2010, 1:26 amDavid Schwartz says:
And frankly, I don’t think the “best interests of the child” should really come into directly it at all. It’s the conflicting rights of the parents the court is trying to balance. What’s being decided here are the issues that the parents had the right to decide jointly based solely on their own interests, so why should their interests be forced to yield to the child’s just because they disagree?
(Of course, best interests of the child might be handy when deciding which parental interest must yield to the other when they conflict. But it should not be anywhere near the top concern.)
February 5, 2010, 6:23 amKenvee says:
Yet even after hearing all of that evidence, the original court found that the best solution was to give them joint rights to make decisions about their children. The only exception was religion, and only because the father “didn’t have a religion” rather than because of any finding that he was acting improperly. I don’t see any reason why a father shouldn’t be allowed to tell his children about his atheism on his time while the mom takes them to church on hers. They’re both valid beliefs.
February 5, 2010, 9:20 amscattergood says:
The import of this decision has nothing to do with its impact on the child. I has to do with this line:
The court emphasized that “religious beliefs” should be interpreted in the broad sense of “world view” and that a parent’s lack of religious belief receives the same amount of protection as any particular religious belief
Why? Because now EVERY belief is a religious belief. Thus the person who sues to make sure that the ‘under G-d’ is removed from the Pledge will be doing so to promote their ‘world view’ which should be considered a ‘religious belief’.
Most definitions of ‘religion’ define it as belief IN G-d. But this ruling states that we should treat a belief ABOUT G-d as a religion as well.
Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is in the eye of the beholder, but the recasting of all ‘world views’ as religion opens up another whole set of problems.
February 5, 2010, 9:41 amThatguy says:
The issue that seems most likely to me, is this.
February 5, 2010, 10:24 amI don’t know if the court meant “Evangelical” as opposed to Orthodox, as in Greek or Eastern Orthodox, but most of the real hard-core evangelicals I’ve met,read, or interacted with, are very specific that non-believers are hellbound sinners and all around evil people.
Therefore, you can imagine what might happen when a child asks someone at church, or mom, “What about Dad? he doesn’t believe in God”
It doesnt take much to figure out that these people were likely doing their very best to poison this child against its father.
arch1 says:
Can someone take a stab at what is meant by “[guaranteeing] freedom of conscience” in the above context? My religion is that at any point in time, either the northernmost headlight on your oldest running car, or the better part of the Florida panhandle, died for our sins and is the source of morality in the universe; what might I be able to do (or others not do) because of this guarantee?
February 5, 2010, 11:06 amU.Va. Grad says:
If I’m understanding the commenters who are familiar with WA state law correctly, that’s been the case in WA for over 100 years now, and the opinion isn’t saying anything new.
February 5, 2010, 11:10 amJason coyne says:
I think this ruling is correct.It follows a series of rulings generally protecting agnostic or atheist beliefs on equal footing as religious beliefs. Some other examples : Allowing an atheist group to should “There is no god” from a rooftop to equal church bells and other calls to worship. Allowing Atheist messages posted in communal observance places (where christmas trees or menorahs or the like are displayed)
The interesting thing about this to me :
If from a legal perspective Atheism is a religion, with all the privileges and restrictions thereof, does a conflict arise when groups demand removal of things like the 10 commandments or “under god” from government property? Atheism promotes “No god”. Removal of these displays is not neutral, it is pro-atheist. How does this get resolved?
February 5, 2010, 11:18 amArthurKirkland says:
Pulling up the ladder on what constitutes a religion seems unwise. If it had been done 2500 years ago, for example, Christianity would have missed the bus. Is Scientology any less a religion for being born a half-century ago? Should the oldest form of religion win? The newest? The most popular? The most popular world-wide, or in a particular nation, or a particular state?
Washington’s Constitution provides a great improvement on the United States Constitution with respect to religion.
With respect to the children, if two parents agree on handling of religious matters for a child, the child seems stuck until the parents are no longer in charge. When the parents disagree, however, the child’s opinions seem more relevant to the conversation.
What would be best were parents to refrain from indoctrinating children. Guidance, advice . . . sure. But requiring a child to profess adherence to a religion? That’s as bad as a parent insisting that a child acknowledge that two plus two equals five. A parent has the right to do so, I suppose, but it is exceedingly bad form, and unreasonable. The world would be a better place, I believe, if beliefs were formed and chosen by free will rather than by indoctrination.
February 5, 2010, 11:24 amChris Travers says:
Given the heavy separation of church and state in Washington State, I think this is the correct interpretation.
February 5, 2010, 11:25 amRoger the Shrubber says:
There aren’t many religions that could survive in that world. If you first heard a priest explain the Holy Trinity when you were 18, you’d think that the guy was dangerously insane. There’s a reason missionaries open schools.
February 5, 2010, 11:34 amGuy says:
Seems neutral to me, they’re not asking for the words to be replaced with “there is no God”, they’re just asking it to be removed. Surely if it said “under the Lord Jesus Christ” a non-Christian could sue even if their religion assumes the non-divinity of Christ. I don’t see what’s so complicated about this.
February 5, 2010, 11:34 amChris Travers says:
Also, even if one doesn’t want to define “religion” as broadly as “world view” I think it is fairly clear that atheism is a religious sentiment and matter of conscience.
February 5, 2010, 11:35 amChris Travers says:
I was raised as a Quaker, and Quakers have no formal theology. One could formally be a Quaker and an Atheist, though I doubt that balance would last for very long. I have known long-time Quakers that were monotheists, autotheists, and polytheists however. When I was 7, despite worshipping at every meal and having a weekly meeting for worship, I didn’t know if my parents were monotheists, agnostics, or atheists.
AK doesn’t much like Quakers though because they don’t afford the law much respect. Quakers believe that one’s conscience always takes precedence over the laws of men and that one has a DUTY to break unjust laws.
Imagine how frustrating it is for a teenager to ask his parents “do you believe in the Bible” and get the answer of “I believe there is wisdom in it.” Worse, that seems to be the standard Quaker response to the question even though I doubt there is a committee anywhere mandating such.
Quakers tell stories and engage in religious metaphor, and leave it to the individual to connect the dots.
February 5, 2010, 11:40 amDennis N says:
[shrug] It’s your theology. What does it command/forbid you to do? Snarks aside, you can’t answer those kinds of questions without a concrete reference.
February 5, 2010, 11:40 amWho Knew? Nonreligious Parents Have Rights, Too. | Little Miss Attila says:
[...] damned skippy they [...]
February 5, 2010, 11:53 amAnthony says:
By your point being incorrect. Removal of those displays is neutral, because it’s not a promotion of ‘No God’, it’s a removal of a promotion of a specific version of God. It doesn’t even necessarily imply atheism — the first 3-4 (depending on version) commandments are offensive to anyone who’s not a follower of a Judeo-Christian tradition.
February 5, 2010, 12:26 pmmack says:
Well the devil is in the details – I have a few questions.
If there is to be a clear seperation between church/religion and state – why is the court making any ruling at all regarding it, even in its first decision.
I know in health matters, (non-emergency) that typically both parents are needed to agree – i.e. should the kid get a vacination or flu shot – or it doesn’t happen. I suppose one could go back to court or to arbitration over it. But, if this is the case in this matter, even though the court ruled rightly, doesn’t it in effect give the husband veto power over their church attendance and religious instruction.
I know some here have said that well, mom can take them to church on her time and dad can disabuse them of religious belief on his time, and that would be the case if the court had said nothing or probably still the case under even the original ruling – but putting it in with non-emergency health care, education, and travel outside the US which are to be made jointly – seems to in effect allow dad to have his way by simply not agreeing that they should go to church – as in effect they will not be allowed to go – and he gets a non-religious atheistic outcome.
So they way I read it now is that dad has to agree or they don’t attend church or pursue religious education – dad doesn’t agree then he gets his way – no church or religion.
I think if the court was tuly respecting of a real seperation of church and state – then they would not rule at all on the issue of religious or non-religious upbring – and then mom or dad could each involve or not involve the kids in religion on their time.
February 5, 2010, 2:06 pmmack says:
While the state should have no role in the establishment of religion – I do think that all religious or non-religious organizations should be allowed use of public property/area for appropriate display of their beliefs, provided that they are footing the bill for it.
I support this view because the strict absence of religious reference or display also implicitly endorses a point or points of view on the subject.
Atheists will argue that they have no belief – but their non-belief in religion or god is a belief. God is a concept that so far as I am aware cannot be proven or disproven and therefore any opinion about such a concept is necessarily ultimately based on personal belief. Hence atheists or agnostics don’t believe anything about the concept of god, don’t believe in god, or don’t believe it is a rational concept, or don’t believe they know, or any one of a thousand other beliefs – but once asked or aware of the general concept they cetainly have thoughts based on beliefs about it.
Additionally everyone does have their own belief system, some involve traditional faiths and others just involve personal belief systems. Thus everyone has some system of belief from which they view themselves and the world, by which they assign value and worth to everything in their life. I.e., this is good, this is bad, I like this, I don’t like that, and so on.
The idea that excluding certain well known faiths from the public square does not send a message or reinforce certain points of view is nonsense. It says at the very least that the state does not approve any faith. Allowing all Christian, Muslim, Atheist, ect…sends the message that all are included and no specific one is endorsed. That is a free market place of ideas.
February 5, 2010, 2:39 pmepeeist says:
I haven’t read the original story, but I wonder how disagreement on other matters (if can’t be resolved jointly) will be dealt with?
E.g. if the parents disagree over which school or private vs. public vs. homeschool or whatever, the children will be sent somewhere. If there is disagreement over non-emergency (but required) medical care, the children will eventually (money/insurance permitting?) get it. But if there’s disagreement over religon, doesn’t that improperly favour (in this instance) the father rather than the mother as much as the original decision favoured the mother (in the sense that they will be taught/raised atheist de facto)? If there’s no agreement is the mother forbidden to take the children to church or discuss religion?
Just as a practical matter – my own beliefs notwithstanding, for the purposes of argument I’m not arguing one belief system is better/more correct – I can’t see how this would work in real-life.
February 5, 2010, 3:31 pmAnthony says:
Right, it sends a message, also stated in the constitution, that the state does not approve or reject any faith. There is no question that such a ban supports a specific viewpoint towards religion (specifically, it supports the viewpoint that people should be free to choose their own religion), but that’s a viewpoint that the clause is meant to support, so it’s hardly rational to say that it’s a violation of that clause.
February 5, 2010, 3:39 pmChris Travers says:
Because it is an important area of life, closely tied to lifestyle and child-rearing.
You haven’t read divorce cases where the parents endlessly argued over chiropractic care for back pain, have you?
Not really. If they can’t decide, power will probably revert in this case to the mother after a year.
More hopefully, a compromise might be reached where both get to express their views without hinderance.
February 5, 2010, 3:53 pmChris Travers says:
It is certainly a religious sentiment in the meaning of the WA. State Constitutionb
February 5, 2010, 3:56 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
February 5, 2010, 3:59 pmGodThe Tooth Fairy is a concept that so far as I am aware cannot be proven or disproven and therefore any opinion about such a concept is necessarily ultimately based on personal belief. Hence atheists or agnostics don’t believe anything about the concept ofgodthe Tooth Fairy, don’t believe ingodthe Tooth Fairy, or don’t believe it is a rational concept, or don’t believe they know, or any one of a thousand other beliefs — but once asked or aware of the general concept they cetainly have thoughts based on beliefs about it.arch1 says:
I see that my attempt to use the One True Faith as a means of understanding the meaning of the Washington State constitutional provision wasn’t going to be real helpful. So let’s try like this:
Can anyone tell me what is meant by the bolded text below? If it is not meaningless, can anyone provide examples of acts (and associated religious beliefs/practices) which would be illegal without it and are legal with it, or vice versa?
Previously flippancy aside, I’m really seeking understanding here; TIA for any help.
February 5, 2010, 4:04 pmmack says:
46.Anthony says:
mack: The idea that excluding certain well known faiths from the public square does not send a message or reinforce certain points of view is nonsense. It says at the very least that the state does not approve any faith.
Right, it sends a message, also stated in the constitution, that the state does not approve or reject any faith. There is no question that such a ban supports a specific viewpoint towards religion (specifically, it supports the viewpoint that people should be free to choose their own religion), but that’s a viewpoint that the clause is meant to support, so it’s hardly rational to say that it’s a violation of that clause.
I did word that part of my post poorly – and you seem to know the constitution in question – so I don’t doubt that you are correct in what you say. Closer to what I wanted to express was that a state prohibition on any expression of positve religion does imply state disapproval of certain beliefs that include a belief in a god, vs belief systems that deny or exclude a belief in god.
I.e., if a county courthouse allowed a christian nativity display (even if the cost of it was privately paid for) – but disallowed a similar expression of muslim or jewish faith then that would be a tacit form of approval of christianity and disapproval of the other faiths. Similarly I believe that the exclusion of all faiths that include a belief in god in the public square implies a disapporval of such faiths and implies approval of agnostic or atheist beliefs. Therefore to be truly neutral would be to allow the expression of all beliefs in appropriate settings if funded by private means – thus christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc… could all participate equally – with the state not allowing or disallowing, approving or disapproving any of them. It would also allow a freer and fuller use of public spaces for everyone.
February 5, 2010, 4:48 pmAnthony says:
If that were true, it would be a problem, but religious statements are certainly not forbidden on any true open forum (i.e. a place where anyone can put anything). They’re forbidden in situations where the state is controlling the contents of that space.
February 5, 2010, 4:54 pmDNJ says:
The won’t be raised atheist – they will not be taught any religious view, whether Christianity or Atheism.
February 5, 2010, 5:01 pmChris Travers says:
Well, let’s see (legal with, illegal without):
1) A church housing a tent city in violation of a city moratorium on permits for such things. (The city can require a permit, but must seek a reasonable accommodation for the church if it applies. It can’t refuse to grant such a permit out of hand.)
2) Kosher or Halal slaughtering of cows and goats.
3) Certainly animal sacrifice is subject to many more rules without the exemption for the same reason.
4) This provides an exemption to duty to provide medical care to children (which is why such cases are generally not prosecuted in Washington if there is a religious objection). Note that this doesn’t abridge the state’s parens patriae power for children who are actually hospitalized however.
5) Presumably, minor crimes committed as protests (sit-down strikes in revolving doors, etc) would be subject to a freedom of conscience defence. I have not been able to find a reference to such a defence in Washington though.
Hope this helps.
February 5, 2010, 5:04 pmChris Travers says:
I would expect atheist monuments to be subject to the same restrictions in Washington State. Atheism is at least a sentiment towards religion.
February 5, 2010, 5:06 pmarch1 says:
Chris Travers,
February 5, 2010, 5:19 pmYes, this helps a lot (I assume you intended attaching a URL to item 4, and that it would’ve pointed to legislation inspired by such religions as Christian Science). I must’ve blocked out some of this stuff as too frustrating to ponder. Thanks (this time In Arrears:-)
Chris Travers says:
there is a specific exemption (or rather, a substitution) from the medical duty to care for children by Christian Scientists. It lists the organization by name which is probably unconstitutional. However, the provision has never been challenged because, well, it is redundant to the Constitutional issues. Therefore striking it would arguably have no effect.
February 5, 2010, 6:03 pmscattergood says:
Actually, the point is that promoting anything that is remotely deist, or atheist would logically fall under the rubrik of promoting a ‘world view’ on par with religion.
What happens when the forced non mentions of G-d are treated the same as the forced mentions of G-d? Treating ‘world views’ on par with religion is the driving issue.
February 5, 2010, 6:05 pmChris Travers says:
This isn’t anything new in Washington State, however. It’s just the way things are done here. And I would have thought that forced non-mentions (prohibited speech) would be treated as roughly equivalent to forced mentions (compelled speech).
February 5, 2010, 6:33 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Many atheists may have sentiments towards religion, but atheism itself is simply a considered decision not to believe in a deity of any kind. It doesn’t automatically require any particular religious view, it just excludes some.
For example, some atheists simply choose not to have faith in god but accept that faith is perfectly fine for those who choose to have it. They do not think there is anything wrong or incorrect with believing in a deity or religion on the basis of faith, they simply choose not to do that.
February 5, 2010, 6:33 pmChris Travers says:
How is this different from Monotheism, Polytheism, or Pantheism?
February 5, 2010, 7:10 pmRicardo says:
Another example appears to be the ceremonial use of peyote by Native Americans. Employment Division v. Smith says federal and state governments are within their rights to ban peyote but the stronger religious freedom provision appears to say Washington state may not ban it unless it can point to a specific public safety concern.
February 5, 2010, 11:39 pmRicardo says:
I think the Washington courts have the argument right: atheism is a particular religious sentiment and so expressions or opinions associated with atheism are as protected as any other religious expressions or opinions.
You cannot, for instance, require a religious test for a government job — which would require someone to affirm something he believes to be false — nor can you force an atheist father to censor his own views on religion or god when around his child.
On the other hand, atheism is clearly not a “religion” with particular religious practices to be protected. For one thing, it’s a basic category error: atheism is no more a “religion” than monotheism or polytheism are religions. Objectivists and Trotskyists would both consider themselves atheists but they have very different ways of seeing the world. So the question is whether Washington State would consider Objectivism or Trotskyism “religions.” And I suspect the answer to that is no.
February 5, 2010, 11:54 pmRicardo says:
To put it another way, if the father was Jewish, giving the mother sole decision making when it comes to religion would mean the father was prohibited by court order from teaching the child that Jesus was not really the son of god, that he did not die for our sins and that he was not resurrected from the dead. That appears to be a pretty clear violation of Washington state’s protection of freedom of conscience.
The point here is that an atheist should be equally free to tell his child identical things about Jesus under the same freedom of conscience provision dealing with matters of religious sentiment. The protection here is not only for religions for any opinions dealing with religious matters, even if they are expressed by people who are not themselves religious.
February 6, 2010, 12:19 amDavid Schwartz says:
In the same way not collecting stamps is different from a hobby. A considered rejection of a family of beliefs is different from the adoption of a belief.
For example, suppose I said to you, “Do you believe there’s a three-headed troll named Zarquon living in the center of Venus?” You’d probably say, “nope, I reject that belief, and I can say I would reject any belief similar to that too”. Isn’t it obvious insanity to argue that your rejection of that belief is in any sense equivalent to someone else’s adoption of it?
There is a huge category difference between believing something and not believing something.
February 6, 2010, 6:19 amChris Travers says:
Since some religions admit of atheistic interpretations (such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc) wouldn’t it make more sense to call atheism a “category of thought concerning religion” than it would to try to classify it as either a religion or not? (I make the same argument about monotheism, polytheism, and pantheism btw too.)
Certainly we could divide hobbies into a number of categories:
“Collecting things”
“Making things”
“Other”
Hobbies in “Other” are still hobbies, no?
February 6, 2010, 12:11 pmDavid Schwartz says:
No. Is “those that don’t include belief in a three-headed troll” a category of religions?
Calling atheism a category of thought is a category *error*.
February 7, 2010, 3:48 amChris Travers says:
No, I think you are making a category error, because your definition of religion (as a system of beliefs) is based on defining religion in the terms offered only by two of the major world religions (Islam and Christianity).
I suppose if you define atheism as being identical in all cases with secular humanism you might have a (somewhat weak) case. However, if it is a broader category then that, I don’t see how you can get around the fact that there are atheistic religions.
Ok, let me explain this in clearer terms.
In any given system of thought and/or belief system (these are not necessarily identical, and religions could be either), you have, as a matter of structure, a question on the nature and structure of divine nature. These can be answered in any combination of the following approaches:
1) The divine nature is a group of multiple gods (a pantheon, polytheism)
2) The divine nature is a singular god (monotheism)
3) The divine nature is everywhere and everything (pantheism)
4) The divine nature is not objectively real (atheism)
5) The only God is the Self (autotheism)
6) We can’t know divine nature and/or we can’t know if divine nature is real (agnosticism)
7) We can only know divine nature through experience (gnosticism)
8) We can know divine nature through study (scholasticism)
Christianity is somewhere between polytheism and monotheism as a matter of form, and some branches are gnostic (Quakers, which are also pantheist in formal outlook) while others are scholastic (Nicene-branch). Islam is much more monotheistic than Christianity and tends to be much more scholastic as well. Both these religions make BELIEF as a fundamental requirement. No other major religion makes such a requirement (I can’t figure out if the Baha’i do or not, though, and while the Sikhs seem to as a matter of form, it isn’t clear what they mean by it).
If we start looking at other religions, however, things start getting more complex. Hinduism is formally polytheist, but substantially a mixture of pantheism and autotheism once you get below the surface. The most traditional, southern Indian Buddhism is formally atheist, but substantially pantheist. Other forms of (Mahayana) Buddhism are more formally polytheist and substantially autotheist. One important thing to understand here though is that most religions throughout history (and even in terms of number, today) are orthopraxies instead of orthodoxies.
In other words, in most religions, followers are not told what to believe, but rather told how to act. This is the difference between ‘doctrine’ (think of military doctrines here) and dogma. The myths may be seen as objectively true or not, but this is up to the individual to decide and a negative decision doesn’t necessarily make the individual non-religious.
For example, I have met Hindus who see the Hindu gods as nice metaphors but not “real” entities. They are not necessarily any less religious for such a view.
February 7, 2010, 1:55 pmDavid Schwartz says:
You can certainly create a class of religions that are compatible with atheism and a class of religions that are incompatible with atheism. Also, I don’t define religion strictly as a system of beliefs. There is no atheist way of life or atheistic practices either. Atheism doesn’t tell people what to believe or how to act.
Right, and notice how whether they’re atheistic or not doesn’t change the fact that they’re Hindus?
February 8, 2010, 2:58 amzuch says:
Everyone then will have millions of hobbies (if not an infinite number). How will we ever find the time to do anything constructive? ;-)
Cheers,
February 8, 2010, 11:27 amChris Travers says:
Correct. Which is why atheism is clearly not “a religion” and I never said it was.
I have known Quakers who were polytheists but were no less Quakers for rejecting monotheism….
Conversely whether or not they’re polytheists doesn’t change whether or not they are Hindus either.
This is what I am getting at: What makes atheism’s relationship to religion different from polytheism?
February 8, 2010, 11:56 amDavid Schwartz says:
Chris Travers: Polytheism requires a belief of a fairly specific type, atheism does not. “Those that include a considered rejection of three-headed trolls” is not similar to “those that include a belief in multiple deities”.
Atheism only seems to be a category of religious thought because of the presence of other categories which is rejects. If there were lots of religions that had were centered on beliefs in three-headed trolls, it would seem like a considered rejection of such trolls was a category of thought.
But it’s a category error to define schools of thought based on what they are not or based on the ideas of other schools of thought.
Your phrase “atheism’s relationship to religion” is the problem. Do you mean relationship to the concept of religion and religious thought? Or do you mean its relationship to existing world religions? It has the latter, but you are trying to say it therefore has the former.
February 9, 2010, 1:53 pm