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.
Poll
