I've been collecting articles on laicite (I don't know how to accents in Word). My major research project is the American Establishment Clause and faith-based organizations that do social work. My idea is to highlight the American view by showing it is not inevitable. Most European countries have a similar doctrine to lacite. They do not treat religion as inviolate. Rather, individuals are inviolate. Someoone explained before that in the states, many colonies were founded by religious dissidents (Pilgrims, Catholics, Quakers). These religions were on the forefront of the Revolution and the Federalist period. They were powerful engines of change from the status quo in Europe. Europe never had such groups with meaningful power. The religious groups in Europe were seen as reactionary.
Because I was born in, the calculus has always been clear to me. My father was very abusive. As a result, my life was almost null b/c of his actions, not condoned by the Society but not condemned, and the Witness doctrines. Growing up in the Cold War,flag salute was a hot botton issue. I received poor grades for writing science papers justifying creationism. My mom was expelled from high school b/c of the flag salute. It shattered her for life. The Supreme Court held that parents could not be punished by flag salute laws. The issue of children being punished, as in my mom's case, was never addressed. The law had to choose between my wishes to be a good American, live by accepting blood transfuctions, celebrate holidays and my parents' physical power over me.
The hypocrisy extends to this very day. In a landmark case for religious freedom, the Court held that Amish children could leave school earlier than the mandated PA rule. No one thought to raise the issue whether an Amish child wanted education but parents took them out against that studen'ts will. I faced this dilemna. My father was obsessed with me. I was the scapegoat. B/c I was a top student with volunteer activities, my teachers strongly encouraged college for me. My mother, seething from her pain, was determined I would not be held back. The abuse was so severe an agency was involved. They provided rape prevention rules to protect me from my father. The bastard, knowing my entire soul wanted college and I could not breathe without it, decided to pull me out of high school for being worldly. I obeyed him even when it meant deep bruises and my life was almost forfeit. Parties were unknown. I worked after school. He called and had me fired. His plan was to monitor me as I bagged groceries. He would appear in the store and comment to everyone how no good I was.
I refused to be meek. With all my being, I started to fight back and placed an order for a gun or knife. When I explained why I needed it, the students were willing to let me purchase one. I was fully prepared to enter foster care. It infuriated me that he belonged in prison but I, the law abiding one, had to leave home. I was deeply embarassed to discuss it with the principal. It was clear my father was delusion that a top student would bag groceries. Nevertheless, what price was I to pay leaving home and facing a judge?
American law should grow up and employ a balancing test. It will never happen because of our mores and history. Parents do not decide whether children can live or go to school.
Another thing is clear. If I write about laicite, I must disengage emotionally. The violins are playing here. My writing sample must be fairly long for a federal job. Maybe this would make a good article for a teen fashion mag or a general women's mag. I need to vent. People believe these are isolated incidents. My Catholic neighbors could get an education and dream of Harvard, as the Kennedys did. I had ministry school. No, my birth right was to have the same dreams and expectations as my peers. My choice, not their choice.