If you were a SCOTUS justice in 1972...

[Schiff for Senate]

Just started thinking about this case while taking my AP Government exam today.

While I'm usually big on religious liberty and a firm believer in the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise can be a bit shakier for me, and this case is a great example of why.

Ultimately I would have joint Justice William O. Douglas in dissenting, because the central claim about free exercise of religion went too far in this case. Of course one should be allowed to freely exercise their religion, but a line has to be drawn somewhere; otherwise religion begins to go against the laws of society. Take for example the fact that Mormons were compelled to drop the practice of bigamy because it was fundamentally at odds with societal values and America's social fabric (we as a society practice monogamy). And to me, even that question is far less clear-cut than the issue of providing children a high school education, because the marriage between two (or more, as is the case here) consenting adults shouldn't be the business of the state as it does not concern them in any way. We as a society might value monogamy, but in my view, education for all should be a higher social priority. But I digress. In the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, I would put the state's interest in educating the next generation, investing in them and setting them up for professional success, above their parents' oppressive religious belief (that the kid may not even hold!). It may at first glance be difficult to reconcile this with the principles of libertarianism, even if not religious freedom, but as Douglas' dissent shrewdly observes, forcing children to drop out of school in 8th grade isn't libertarian so much as it is regressive and oppressive to them (and any hopes or aspirations they may have for themselves):

While the parents, absent dissent, normally speak for the entire family, the education of the child is a matter on which the child will often have decided views. He may want to be a pianist or an astronaut or an oceanographer. To do so he will have to break from the Amish tradition.

It is the future of the student, not the future of the parents, that is imperiled by today's decision. If a parent keeps his child out of school beyond the grade school, then the child will be forever barred from entry into the new and amazing world of diversity that we have today. The child may decide that that is the preferred course, or he may rebel. It is the student's judgment, not his parents', that is essential if we are to give full meaning to what we have said about the Bill of Rights and of the right of students to be masters of their own destiny. If he is harnessed to the Amish way of life by those in authority over him and if his education is truncated, his entire life may be stunted and deformed.

Now, if the child had a say in this matter and they independently did not want to go to school, that might muddy the waters for me...I'd have a more mixed opinion at that point (on one side there's the public interest in educating everyone through high school, on the other the point about religious liberty and the fact that if a child does not want to learn, they cannot be forced to). I would probably ultimately side with the Amish at that point, but with circumstances as they were (i.e. parents making the decision for their children), I'd have ruled against them, and on the side of Wisconsin.

[MarkD]

I'd side with the Amish. My problem with Douglas's reasoning, and yous, is that you treat 13-14 year olds as if they are emotionally mature enough to defy their parents' wishes regarding adherence to their faith-based traditional teachings about education. At that age, teens still need their parents' guidance, rather than a permissive attitude of let the kids decide what they want to do!

[darklordoftech]

I'd side with the Amish. My problem with Douglas's reasoning, and yous, is that you treat 13-14 year olds as if they are emotionally mature enough to defy their parents' wishes regarding adherence to their faith-based traditional teachings about education. At that age, teens still need their parents' guidance, rather than a permissive attitude of let the kids decide what they want to do!

I don't think compulsory education is letting kids doing whatever they want.

[Schiff for Senate]

I'd side with the Amish. My problem with Douglas's reasoning, and yous, is that you treat 13-14 year olds as if they are emotionally mature enough to defy their parents' wishes regarding adherence to their faith-based traditional teachings about education. At that age, teens still need their parents' guidance, rather than a permissive attitude of let the kids decide what they want to do!

I don't think compulsory education is letting kids doing whatever they want.

This. To be perfectly frank (not that I'd ever publicly dare to say this if I was a SCOTUS judge), I'd go as far as to say it's the parents are immature, not the children, and the parents who are living and entrapping their children in their backwards way of life.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'd side with the Amish here.

[SWE]

I would join Stewart's concurrence. I'm partial towards Douglas's perspective in general here, however, as Stewart points out,there was no evidence offered of a tension between the parents rights and children's rights in this particular case, so that question wasn't in front of the Supreme Court. Absent that evidence, this is a fairly straightforward conflict between the state and the parents religious liberty. So I'd side with the Amish, but with the door open for a different outcome if a court was made aware of the children's contrary preferences

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Wisconsin. Legally I understand why the Court decided like it did, but... I will always think a child's right to avail themselves fully of education and get the entire breadth of options and opportunities (at least until they reach adulthood) for their own lives will outweigh the parents' religious freedoms.
American homeschooling is a huge problem now, with piecemeal regulation often woefully inadequate to ensure any learning is happening. Parents often do not have the resources, knowledge or training to know how best to educate their children, and our society ought to stop acting like they should have veto power over every aspect of their childrens' lives.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wisconsin. It is the prerogative of the state to establish common standards of education that bring society together and allow children to make their own way through life. You don't get to use religion as an opt-out.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That language from Douglass is so extraordinarily confident of the mainstream society and  condescending of the Amish way of life ( "new and amazing world of diversity" vs. "stunted and deformed" ). 

[politicallefty]

I'd side with the Amish. My problem with Douglas's reasoning, and yous, is that you treat 13-14 year olds as if they are emotionally mature enough to defy their parents' wishes regarding adherence to their faith-based traditional teachings about education. At that age, teens still need their parents' guidance, rather than a permissive attitude of let the kids decide what they want to do!

Where would you draw the line, or do you have one, with respect to parents enforcing religious doctrine and/or practices on minor children?

I would join Stewart's concurrence. I'm partial towards Douglas's perspective in general here, however, as Stewart points out,there was no evidence offered of a tension between the parents rights and children's rights in this particular case, so that question wasn't in front of the Supreme Court. Absent that evidence, this is a fairly straightforward conflict between the state and the parents religious liberty. So I'd side with the Amish, but with the door open for a different outcome if a court was made aware of the children's contrary preferences

I think Douglas was considering the possibility that the children were coerced by the parents into that viewpoint. However, I don't think the Supreme Court has the appropriate tools to answer that question in this case. I'm also inclined to agree with the Stewart concurrence in this particular case.

[Schiff for Senate]

Wisconsin. Legally I understand why the Court decided like it did, but... I will always think a child's right to avail themselves fully of education and get the entire breadth of options and opportunities (at least until they reach adulthood) for their own lives will outweigh the parents' religious freedoms.
American homeschooling is a huge problem now, with piecemeal regulation often woefully inadequate to ensure any learning is happening. Parents often do not have the resources, knowledge or training to know how best to educate their children, and our society ought to stop acting like they should have veto power over every aspect of their childrens' lives.

I completely agree with this. As I stated in the OP, no constitutional right is absolute, and in the case of religious freedom, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The interest of the state is in educating children. That is their obligation, and that's something that should be administered without discrimination, whether the child is Amish or not. It has nothing to do with one's religion.

When you're an adult, do whatever the  you want, I guess, but in this case I can see some of the Amish kids looking back as adults later and wishing they'd had the opportunity to go to school and do more with their lives...an opportunity that was snatched away from them under the bullsh**t guise of "religious freedom."

[Elcaspar]

Definitely Wisconsin. The state interest to universal education and the choices and experiences provided as such, clearly outweighs the religious liberty to keep them in an insular community. The court clearly misunderstands pluralism if it thinks they protected it by allowing the Amish to stay as such, as now the children wont have outside experiences or general education if they later decide to break off from the community.