*1 Appellant. Respondent, 92.] State [No. State, Yoder, v. Yutzy, Appellant. State, Respondent, 93.] State [No. Miller, Appellant. 94.] State Respondent, v. [No. State, January 8, Argued December 1970. Decided Nos. State 92-94. 1971. 539.) reported (Also 2d 182 N. W.
For appellants by there was a brief B. William Joseph Ball, Shelly, Shelly, G. Ball & all of Harris- burg, Pennsylvania, by Thomas C. Eeherle and Risser Risser, Madison, argument & all of oral Mr. Eeherle and Mr. William B. Ball. respondent argued by
For the was John cause W. Calhoun, general, attorney assistant with whom on the brief were Robert Warren, attorney W. general, and Louis Koenig, attorney A. county. district of Green
A brief amici curiae filed James L. Greenwald of Madison for Merriman, Eeverend Willis J. Executive Vice President of Churches; the Wisconsin Council of Swarsensky, Dr. Manfred Rabbi, E. Temple El, Beth Madison; Msgr. Breines, Andrew R. Pastor of Saint Aquinas Parish, Madison, Thomas and Madison editor of the Catholic Herald Citizen. *4 guaranteed con- liberty our J. C. Hallows, No society important
stitution or vital to our free is more religious liberty protected than a free exercise poses the appeal clause of the first This amendment. question compulsory law of whether infringes state, Amish, re- applied this to the ligious liberty and, so, if interference is whether such constitutionally justified.
If the to withstand education law is appellants’ challenge, either constitutional it must be with a constitu because statute interfere does tional freedom with their sincere to act accordance religious beliefs or burden on the exer because the free appellants’ justified by “compelling cise regulation subject within the state interest regulate power to . . . .” NAACP State’s constitutional Sup. 415, 438, v. Button 371 U. S. Ct. L. 2d 405. The determination of whether a law infringing liberty justified requires weighing of the burden on the free exercise one’s importance and the as infringement. justification serted the substantial Verner Sherbert v. 374 U. S.
1790,
Is there exercise clause? independent “The an Amish as were founded in sect Bern, Erlenbach, near Am- Switzerland. Jakob mann, Anabaptist Menno Swiss follower of Mennonites, Simons broke with church his disagreement he over what unwarranted felt were de- partures practices. Amish, from traditional Ammann, followers of dedicated main- thus themselves to taining resisting practices any capitulation the old of worldliness. . . . the sin
435 “The Old Order Amish the most and conservative numbering traditional of the sect, several branches fifty about thousand children adults in United and Compulsory States.” Education, The Amish and 53 Va. (1967), L. Rev. 933.
The religion rules conduct folk its incorporated Ordnung culture context are in the of each community ordinarily are not articulated and codified writing religions. as some in other theistic tenets Compliance Ordnung by with the is enforced sanctions shunning. excommunication and Hostetler, Amish See Society p. 63; Yoder, Meidung, Caesar The& 23 Qtrly. Many (1949), 76, Mennonite Rev. 98. of the tenets religion are found in The Dortricht Confession of 3 (1632) discussed Commonwealth v. Beiler Super. 462, 168 Pa. 79 2d Atl. 136. The lack of codification of the Amish is of no tenets concern. require exercise clause not does the codification tenets scope nor does this clause define the religion. purpose, religion For its defines itself and binds the individual conscience.
At appellants put by the trial expert in evidence testimony range the full of the Amish beliefs tenets of the Old Order Amish Dr. John A. Hostetler requires testified the Amish It is stated Robert C. Casad in his article entitled Compulsory Rights, Education Religion and Individual And Public Order most basic tenet of the Amish separation Scripture, from the world relies on the Romans 12:1 [12:2], world, ye “Be not conformed to this but be trans your renewing ye may prove formed mind that what good, acceptable, perfect, God,” will of and II 6:14, ye unequally yoked together Corinthians “Be with unbelievers; fellowship righteousness unrigh for what hath with light teousness? communion hath what with darkness?” To Amish, philosophy: They “are these beliefs not mere social question are fundamental whole existence on earth.” Temple University; Professor at author of “Amish Life Society (1968),” (Revised 1968).” “Amish *6 part way church a of salvation a
as the individual’s of sepa- community separate The Amish from the world. religious what by belief of rateness is dictated by which all will for them and thus the means God’s religious separateness they unique have maintain this meaning. religion Amish
The dictates the Old Order Amish according- inception to live child from of adolescence the community; should the mode of that he life the high any high or school, since attend school The private, salvation. a deterrent to constitutes his religious and cul- period critical of adolescence the the development at time tural child because this the life, gradually of Amish child into the fullness enters given directly inter- responsibilities which would be high go compelled school, and fered with if he were religion requires accepts baptism. Thus, adult the worldly the avoidance of educational environment duty imposes on become mature adolescent to may regard a wisdom different from what others proper responsibilities wisdom in skills and which may fitting life different from others what long Amish, pursue. To a child wish how should religious question. attend a formal school is evaluate, prohibited court and in fact is This does not evaluating, pur from belief for ecclesiastical Schempp Abington poses. (1963), Dist. 374 School 844; Sup. Presby 1560, 10 2d 203, S. 83 Ct. L. Ed. U. 440, (1969), Hull 89 terian Church v. Church 393 U. S. Sup. Irrelevant, too, L. 21 2d 658. is this 601, Ct. Ed. one, validity, opinion, it court’s if has reason ableness, or the merits the Amish beliefs. argument appellants’ The refusal obey compulsory part law is school their wor- practice merely ship way or a of life cannot be accepted. The exercise is not clause restricted protection worship ritualistic formal acts com- its religions mon in practice theistic but also includes the binding the exercise of which is in conscience. See Verner, supra, Sherbert v. Jenison (1963), re 96, 515; Minn. N. W. 2d 375 U. S. 39; 11 L. 2d 267 Minn. question N. 2d that, W. 588. There is no found infringes court, the trial education law upon appellants within free exercise scope protection amendment. first conflicting weighing interests. (A) right. on constitutional burden *7 balancing competing justifi- the the factors to find compulsory law, cation of ex- we first the school must amine the the burden caused with its interference religion. heavy appellants’ is exercise the How burden? of com- the We think is clear burden it pulsory heavy education is a The law one. commands appellants perform repug- to affirmative acts which are Amish, secondary nant to their To schools only system unacceptable they teach an value integrate groups homogenized also seek to ethnic into a resulting psychological society, in a alienation of Amish great parents children from their harm and to the child. places upon The law also choice of these fathers each obey to either its commands and risk the loss of his salva- disobey tion or to law invite criminal sanctions. sincerity appellants in their and in beliefs religion questioned; sincerity cannot be their such stipulated in the record. compulsory impact the Amish of on laws they in other states re- so severe where were public they
quired schools, their children to sold to send sought religious freedom their farms elsewhere. Amish Wisconsin were the victims of Some they sus- daily were which so became severe fines sought they governor pended of Iowa here, spirit hope freedom in a and with not unlike Clippings: Pilgrim came America. See Fathers who to society: Separation Relation to secular membership, organization and church state: Church Legislative Library. When Wisconsin Reference longer move, impact may can no result Amish religious community. of their extermination children them- impact on the Amish There another high They go required school. they if selves living anguish in two experience a would useless they in the receive Either the education worlds. Old members as school irrelevant to their lives make secondary will school values Order these chil- trial, impossible. one as life At high go Since did school. dren she not want testified being truants, do not we are not as the children sued they independent question have an reach the of whether pro- right to be free exercise of involving solely par- view this case tected here. We bring up his children freedom ent’s dictates.- believes God he Compelling interest. (B) we have *8 On the other side scale compelling interest a in not education which itself is regulate. power It although to is within the state it regulation aas show a for the to not sufficient goal. compelling interest policy A relation to direct subject general matter but just in interest not exception regulation apply without need to legislation. objectives purposes attain the began United in in States Compulsory education 5 in 1889. two Wisconsin this state in 1642 5 Compulsory Education, 53 L. Rev. Note, Amish Va. 925, (1967), 930.
439 cases6 which our school have considered any law add little neither issue because involves exemption religious right. claim upon based expressed Meyer General in in education was 400, v. Nebraska (1923), Sup. 625, 262 390, U. 43 Ct. S. 1042, Ed. said, L. when American the court “The people always regarded acquisition have education and knowledge supreme importance matters which diligently promoted.” should be In Brown v. Board of Education 483, 493, 686, 347 U. S. 98 L. 873, the court noted education was re- that quired performance in public responsibilities of our good and was citizenship; the foundation of it principal awakening instrument the child to cultural values, preparing professional him for training, later helping adjust normally him his environment. point out
The Amish that the education about talked theirs; for a world cases is which is not these that different; their cultural their life re- values training years quires professional no and that two high help school education Amish children to does normally adjust their environment. The merit, compelling pro- claim, with good years’ product additional com- duces as two high pulsory school education does.7 Freudenberg 184; 166 Wis. State W. N. Alley (1921), 85, 182 In re 174 Wis. N. W. 360. county Deininger, E. sheriff of Defense witness Wilbur Green present from 1963 to undersheriff 1967 and and a city department police, that, of Monroe member of testified knowledge, teenage member of the Old to his Order Amish dwelling county apprehended group in Green had ever been engaged in for crime or acts of violence. arrested Kay Kaskey, past years P. Defense witness nine di- department county, of social services for rector of Green county no Amish in the he knew of who had been testified assistance, unemployed recipients had been or received illegitimate births, compensation, unemployment had been resi- aged, supported indigent, publicly for the homes dents *9 patriae parens argues capacity of
The state that in its regulate might be unreasonable it can children when it but there apply This true restraints to adults. such parens doctrine limitations on constitutional judgment patriae. its Here, the has substituted state judgment of the natural type of education for the religion of parent for the no allowance has made religion parent. doctrine of child or parens patriae juvenile-court procedure applied to has recently Gault in In re received a setback Sup. 1428, 527, 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d where U. Ct. S. benign right supreme held over the to counsel was child’s protection of the state. important religion, matter of freedom of chil- parents their
natural have the to rear should par- religion, especially here, where dren in their agreement of their are in and the tenets ents a child upbringing. require When render such them to for himself age judgment, can choose he reaches ca- religion, prior time its to that his ought patriae enforce educational parens not to pacity of destroy directly influence or requirements which will justified be- to the Amish Nor is harm choice. this may children after speculation some Amish on cause To force reaching adulthood leave their majority children, worldly on all it, confer a need in order to or do not want of whom might reject who later on the few benefit dubious compelling interest. not a Prince Massachusetts relies on The state justifica- 88 L. its U. S. Prince, regulate But affairs of children. tion mentally ill, or He further physically alcoholics. stated people to the social burdens the tax- did not add which county bear, must and that the fact the Amish payers of Green adding high no effect school has not attend children do taxpayers. these carried social burdens
441 involving while a law, child labor was more concerned public safety. with Prince, (a In the defendant Jehovah Witness) allowing nine-year-old was convicted of a child religious magazines to sell public aon comer in street evening. religious the While a claim was asserted and weighing a analysis made, public the court found the compelling. was holding persuasive This is not in this sensitive area where each case must be evaluated on its facts. Since same court the does not decide all the cases, there is bound a opinion. to be difference of Sherbert Verner, supra, v.
Thus a court the held Seventh-Day unemploy- could Adventist not be denied compensation ment by benefits South Carolina because she pur- refused to work on Saturday, her The Sabbath. pose underlying unemployment compensa- the denial of compelling tion justify was not a reason and the did not placement religious right. of a upon substantial burden i.e., purpose indolence, The denial, to foster not by religious Furthermore, was exception. defeated legislation required, case, act the instant an forbidden Thus, consti- the court found a exception tutional for from Sabbatarians the South People Woody Carolina 2d (1964), law. 61 Cal. 716, Supreme 813, 394 Pac. 2d the California Court made exception narcotic, peyote, an for use of a which by the Native American Church in ritualistic used its for worship. the small use The court considered underlying religious purpose not to be subversive public protect health purpose of narcotic laws great. impact on to be restriction exemption an requires us to ask whether Sherbert de- for the Amish would compulsory education law We think not. purpose of education. feat perform one his purpose of the law enable is to If the exception. precedent for an duties, there is then public (1963), Jenison 96, in In re Minn. court 14, 515; 375 U. S. 2d N. W. 39; 2d 125 N.
L. 2d 267 Minn. W. Supreme on Court remand from United States excep- light Sherbert, found reconsideration in an jury person would tion from service for whose duty judge Here, not allow her to others. jury service, required an case, affirma- like the instant contrary found tive act conscience. court great exception. The impact jury system an on the exemption recognizing an interest was guarantee of accommodation to effectuate *11 exercise clause. flag-salute Likewise, cases, Board Education in Sup. (1943), 624, 1178,
v. Barnette 63 Ct. 87 319 U. S. requirement 1628, exemption L. an found to was contrary perform to to an affirmative act which was fulfillment belief but in of the duties jury case, catastrophe would result citizen. As in the great exemption, any from the harm result nor would person exemption. to the to from involved or others exemption slight impact of on the such an underlying objectives regula- purposes of the state good citizenship. tion to foster granting recognize harm from the an We where exemption person to to or will result either involved although required, against re- others, and where act ligious passive nature, in have beliefs, courts is some paramount compelling. or to be found the directly with Generally, such acts have not interfered worship seriously exer- with the sacramental acts required Thus, faith. vaccination was cise one’s 816, 927, Ark. 2d 237 377 S. Cude State W. Application President & and the blood transfusions Georgetown (D. 1964), College, Inc. C. Cir. Directors of 978, U. S. certiorari 2d denied Fed. contrary, re 746. But to the 12 L. Ed. 2d see 32 Ill. Estate 2d E. 2d Brooks N. government the Amish that 435. It not claimed regulate reasonably cannot religiously some moti- acts vated, they point but compulsory out its effect on the Amish far more harmful than the effects of vaccination or a blood transfusion was on
We think possible spurious it is even less assert exemption claim for under than this case under Sherbert. Claims for exemption such easily an can be detected uniqueness because of people. of the Amish Nor is argument there merit in the state’s its administra- expense tive exemption inconvenience of an should be put avoided. Here, state no expense exemption. True, county may Green lose few dollars aid hardly this amount can be the of a basis compelling state interest.
Granting exception an from education to the Amish will goal do no more ultimate of educa- tion than design to dent symmetry of enforce- right ment. The free exercise of one’s under the first amendment should be accorded much protection guarantees other first amendment speech press. freedom of the In those cases right great nature of the weight against is accorded governmental regulation. worship your *12 practice your religious or to God important are as beliefs speak print freely or and may, to the involved, important. individual be more
Establishment clause. granting exemption in Sherbert to the Seventh- Day Adventist, the court its decision was not stated fostering Seventh-Day the establishment of the Adventist religion nothing in South Carolina but “reflects more governmental obligation neutrality than the in the face religious the answer differences.” This argument recognize exemption that to an for the 444 case clause. This violate the establishment would clause and the
does not involve the establishment neutrality and accommoda- the doctrines misconceives recognize clause free exercise tion. Authorities now and overlap, conflict, can and the establishment clause squared any neu- always theory cannot on strict be supra. trality. Abington Schempp, See School Dist. may require neutrality” a state The “free exercise religious special provisions order make in for interests to relieve them from both direct and indirect burdens placed religion by increased on exercise regulations.8 neutrality governmental principle of This Woody, exemplified Sherbert, and Jenison recently Tax Commission Walz v. Cases. was As said p. Sup. 1409, 669, 664, 668, at 90 Ct. 397 U. S. exemption 697, L. which held tax 25 2d property constitutional: neutrality in area “The course of constitutional this straight line; rigidity absolutely cannot defeat an could well be purpose provisions, which is basic these sponsored favored, be or none insure general principle commanded, and inhibited. The none and all that deducible from the First has Amendment by the Court this: that we will not tolerate been said govern- governmentally either mental pressly proscribed established interference with Short of those ex- governmental there is room acts productive neutrality
play which will joints of a benevolent permit exercise exist without sponsorship and without interference. Religion judgment under “Each value Clauses particular ques- turn whether must therefore on acts 8 Religion Katz, Neutrality, Freedom and See: State Religion (1953), 426; and U. L. Rev. American Constitu Chi. Kauper, Prayer, Supreme (1964); Public tions Schools Kauper, Schempp Court, (1963), 1031; Mich. L. Rev. Neutrality Accommodation, Re Sherbert: Studies ligion Public Order 29. See also: v. Brown and The Braunfeld 599, 608, 6 L. U. Ed. 2d S. *13 statutory exemption for court said that Sabbatarians -where Sunday closing permissible. be from laws would
445 religious tion are intended establish or interfere with practices doing beliefs and or have effect of so.” (1968), See also: Board Education v. Allen 392 of 236, Sup. 1923, U. 88 L. S. Ct. 20 Ed. 2d 1060. involving
Other eases
the Amish.
involving compulsory
The three cases
education and
religious
other
have denied
freedom
states
they
controlling
persuasive.
but
are not
These
Hershberger
State
(1955),
App. 188,
v.
103 Ohio
144
693;
E.N.
2d
Commonwealth v. Beiler
(1951), 168
Super. 462,
134;
Pa.
79
2d
v.
Atl.
and State
Garber
(1966),
896,
made of the relative of in the beliefs degree issue or of the which the enforcement of law infringed upon those Nor did the court beliefs. consider purpose regulatory prac- the effectiveness the ticability exemption. type analysis of an of an used today’s dealing satisfy does not in with con- standards questions. significant stitutional that Beiler It is also legis- by Pennsylvania decision has been modified lature. considering the Garber, court State Kansas problem to be that the law Sherbert, after held was against appellants’ contention enforced the Amish. The that Garber consideration of an insensitive reflects reading by part supported opinion. mechanical Garber the Beiler followed court’s separation religious belief, im- conduct from plying protection only afforded constitutional that the worship and held connected to the act beliefs directly compulsory since attendance laws do abridgement worship, their affect Amish there no was have a ritual- freedom. But Amish do not worship. They istic form of have such. no churches as by style life Their dictated rather than motivated concept of the of the Garber narrowness by clause the free exercise protection scope afforded unpersuasive. the case renders 925, 951, describes L. Rev. 10 Note: Va. day operation provides Pennsylvania plan which offering programs by groups those schoolwork church schools eighth grade. completed Each have older who fourteen a week the “school” spends than three hours less student mathematics, English, and social studying subjects health such agricultural by domestic studies, supplemented outside legiti perhaps principal “since projects. concludes The note children goal is to insure mate they prove adults, will not productive and that become useful state,” these “schools” dysfunctional wards of the to become so counterparts satisfactory as their trade school ought to be as communities. urban
Garber also luster exemption has lost because an provided legislature. the Kansas Kan. Stat. Annot., (1968 sec. Supp.). exemption 72-1111 This comply enables Amish to with the law with Kansas unique program. legislative its educational These ex- emptions important goals the fact evince of educa- tion regulation can be attained alternative forms *15 infringing without rights. first amendment although We conclude subject that education with- is power in the constitutional regulate, state to there compelling not such years’ high state interest two compulsory school justify will the burden places upon appellants’ it of their exercise religion. Therefore, Compulsory the Wisconsin School Law, 118.15, Stats., Attendance unconstitutional sec. applied to appellants, these Amish and the convictions If in the must be future the are such reversed. facts that of the education law effectiveness seriously jeopardized by exemption, will be this we right question. reserve the to re-examine the By Judgments reversed. Court. — (concurring). T. J. I with concur Hansen, Connor opinion the result reached in the Chief written Mr. only Justice the extent that children of Hallows, of the Old Order Amish or Conserva- members living Church, tive Mennonite of the as members required Amish community, not attend a should be requirements beyond school which meets state law grade. eighth case, in- has been an of this there Under facts establishing showing adequate that maintaining system the de- overrides educational an free exercise their fendants’ and until further Consequently, I hold that unless would invoking amend- experience so the first indicates functioning threat effective poses a to the ment serious system of an children state, educational within the order involved this case members eighth required beyond the should not be to attend school grade.
I am authorized to that Justices Wilkie, Beil- join Hanley in this Hansen, puss, Robert W. concurring opinion. principal opinion (dissenting). J.
Heffernan, upon questionable erroneous conclusion an based reaches Contrary reasoning the facts. and a misstatement implication opinion writer, were failing children to a prosecuted to send high prosecuted public They for violation were school. requires attendance at 118.15(1), Stats., which sec. private, until the end of school, whether years period child in which the attains sixteen school important age. crucial this The distinction is opinion part upon principal rests dissent. only misconception alternative to the defendants’ *16 criminality their children. is attendance for school require- not the case. The law makes no such Such is ment. problem the faulty, it reasoning for conceives is ignores completely liberty religious It alone. one of them- liberty children to avail personal
the eighth grade. beyond opportunities of educational selves people young to make of these addition, the freedom ignored. completely a choice is opinion states: That truants, being we are not children sued the “Since they in- question have an whether the of do not reach religion right of dependent the free exercise of involving case as protected here. view this We
be bring up religious freedom to solely parent’s of (Emphasis God dictates.” children as he believes his supplied.) This, easy of course, way keeps is the out. It intact opinion’s oversimplification problem completely question avoids difficult of the court’s responsibility legislative to see that mandate uni- versal education purports is carried out. It to strike a religious liberty, blow for doing, but in so little it does impinges upon personal for liberty. balancing principal opinion solves equal Having up postu- interests with ease. once set impinged late that cannot exercise be upon by compelling the state unless there is a state regulation, syllogism completed in interest is unsupported “compulsory assertion that education although compelling is ... interest it within the is power regulate.” state contrary
That assertion to a reasonable view is accepted Brown v. law. Board Education S. 98 L. U. stated: perhaps important “Today, education is func- most governments. Compulsory tion of and local school state great expenditures attendance laws recognition importance demonstrate our both society. required education to our democratic It in the performance public responsibilities, of our most basic very even the armed forces. It is the founda- service good citizenship. Today principal tion of ment in it instru- awakening values, pre- child to cultural paring professional helping training, him for later adjust normally him to to his environment. In these any may reasonably days, it doubtful succeed child be expected opportunity life if he is denied the of an education.” compelling more than could be What govern- local important function state and “the most ments.” *17 up political organic a that set very act first empha- territory that now Wisconsin for the
structure public Article compelling interest education. sized provided: Ordinance III, Northwest knowledge being necessary morality, “Religion, good government happiness mankind, of schools encouraged.” of forever and the means be shall Anno., p. 1 Wis. Stats. 740. Subsequent provided to the Ordinance amendments proceeds that the of were to be used lands sem- learning. enabling act under Con- inaries which gress organization authorized directed state this granted township every that section 16 of should be purposes. the state for school compelling interest prime and Education been a has beginning. very state since its this ques- completely answer This, of does not course, compelling of the state interest of whether tion obviously paramount belief to the sincere should be ought not be attendance school elders grade-school we compelled beyond On one hand a level. compelling unquestionable legislative mandate of find until all children attend school state interest —that age other, a man- and, on the constitutional of sixteen — prohibits the there be law that date that shall no state free exercise favoring ought either to make choice
A court an irreconcil- unless particular church could not foresee Jefferson conflict exists. Thomas able He his exist. stated could ever conflicts such Danbury Baptist Association of the reply to an address proposed freedom of recently to the in reference to the constitution: amendment expression supreme “Adhering will to this rights conscience, I shall see nation in behalf with sincere satisfaction progress of those sentiments rights, all natural man to to restore his which tend opposition to his no natural he convinced has Reynolds United States social duties.” 244. 25 L. Ed. S.U. express hope than rather Jefferson’s words While clear: church between realization, the lesson is Conflicts *18 state, i.e., and between man’s natural duty organized and choice his to society, ought his to be judicial reconciled declaring where possible, and fiats legislative ought enactments unconstitutional to be except avoided in the clearest of cases and where all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. principal opinion would also hold that state the compelling no
has regulatory in interest a measure unless it apply regulation has “need to exception the without to attain purposes objectives the legislation.” The argument, therefore, grant seems be an exemption for group such a small the Wisconsin upon general policy Amish would no effect have the education, the to further and the diminution of insignifi- years Amish education two children’s so de minimis. cant be argument
This misconceives nature of the state’s compelling purpose in education. The of educa- provide tion and, not alone of educated mass hence, citizens, addition, is, taxable intended to government’s educate life. The individual for concern enforcing regulatory with Eather, is not scheme. upon precepts concern is based North- stated supra, gov- morality, good Ordinance, religion, west ernment, happiness dependent upon are all education. government compelling This is the interest. problem de difficult cannot
This be dismissed as minimis. obligation to each interest and runs
every context child in the state. In the concern state, law the no below child’s minimis the de principal opinion the law. The bolsters assumption argument making unsupported tacit re- children will forever that all or most of necessarily is not main their communities. This Large young people voluntarily leave fact. numbers community year are thereafter each way forced to world. make their group young received have Those Amish who leave the equips American them for modern education that By enforcing law, life. school attendance consigned people young these state Wisconsin has *19 goal except the any those of future choice or a without They life. without the traditional Amish are abandoned they elect leave intellectual survive should tools way the Amish of life. attractions, but has its Amish life traditional depriving of but
ought by children all court, Amish this other for all time all eighth grade education, block a bare effect this decision. them. the of This is avenues parents, the religious their of of the beliefs On the basis hearing consigned ato a are without children Amish ignorance may to the author it seem life of as —blissful apparently opinion, views who principal uncorrupted by savage,” world. “the noble Amish agrarianism. picture idyllic of left with The reader is “Drinking tragic of Amish life: Unmentioned is side Society, (Hostetler, Amish problematic” . . . has become “Preoccupa- 281); “Rowdyism p. 282); (p. and stress” “Drinking 282); common (p. filthy is with stories” tion 288); large (p. “It Amish would settlements” in all just among appear the Amish rate of suicide is that highest high, the nation.” It higher, not than for is if 300). society perhaps among young (p. men is good society itof miscrocosm of another is —some good of and evil It bad. is cross-section some any society. pervade But that the children’s influences the fate ostensible solicitude for of children who our With by parents, legal affected conduct in other situations surprising guardian appointed ad litem that no was it is represent children’s interest. While the beliefs these lawsuit, apparent parents that are at this it is stake equal importance. interest Reason dictates the children’s by guardian qua representation ad litem a sine non majority’s result. ought denial of justified myth- not be on the ological principal opinion. basis assumed descriptions apply gener- above society ally and are specifically descriptive of the Amish community involved in source, Hostetler, case. The this Amish Society, upon by is the one relied majority. apparent, It is however, problem having “peculiar people” these society ought in our not be fining sending solved jail they them or them to if not to choose conform to the usual mores state. While the incomplete, record in this case it re- complete any veals lack attempt by local or state officials to deal realistically imaginatively with a problem. fact, strong difficult there evidence that purpose prosecution of this was not to further compelling education, but rather reprehensible objective, case, under the facts this *20 to force only the Amish into purpose the school for of- qualifying augmented for state aids. points view, clearly
The however, are reconcilable. requires The all law that children attend school until they object are The to the sixteen. Amish worldliness high of the usual The school. writer of this dissent be- objections by lieves that both can be met an Amish vo- reading, agriculture, cational which will teach school and husbandry, precepts and whatever the Amish community desires. English addition,
In such basic and mathe- skills as knowledge taught “unpretentious” matics should be — only community, that will be useful not in Amish away but would better enable those who fall from the community adjust to and to to outside world con- they if tinue their education so desire. plans adopted Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Such have been gestapo usually only Iowa, after school tactics Titus, Deuteronomy, 18; ch. verse verse 14. ch. community outraged into the non-Amish authorities Iowa, only reaching in- In alternatives. reasonable Hughes brought rational- Harold tervention Governor problem. ity compassion reconciliation programs Pennsylvania plan offers The schoolwork completed years or have fourteen older who Amish eighth grade. English, math- In addition to classwork develop ematics, they required do- hygiene, are Iowa, schooling agricultural mestic and In skills. required, need not meet Amish schools practice fol- curriculum A similar school standards. encouraged Maryland. Indiana, lowed Amish superintendent organize schools own schools. points out that the enforcement school Hostetler “professionalization” in the attendance resulted laws has nearly 200 that, consequence, of Amish schools and elementary vocational 50 Amish Amish schools students) (for post-fourteen-year-old were schools recognize plans operation in 1967. way life the Amish
children will be better suited productive members of they are to be if educated recognize community. They in- also they children if will in education that terest serve community. leave the therefore, are not those that are alternatives, opinion. Compulsory principal
posed in the age necessarily “worldly” education. is not until sixteen go requires to a law school part No of our student merely requires choice. It not of his own *21 why go There reason he school. community establish its own should not school—as the Amish other will foster states —that Amish have ignore They may however, way not, the com- of life. largely Hostetler, alternatives on these relies This discussion supra, pp. 193-203. pelling educating interest of the state their children. They may religious organizations do as other have done and establish their own schools teach them basic skills precepts and the of their own beliefs inbe they they conformance with law. Until so, do subject are penalties. to criminal prosecutorial Neither the tactics of school authori- insensitivity principal nor opinion ties of the to the policies personal educational of the and the liberties appropriate these children problem by to the faced the Amish.
Contrary to opinion conclusions subscribed majority court authored Mr. Justice Connor T. I am satisfied Hansen, compelling in universal education has abundantly been demonstrated. stay
I affirm, would but would execution sentence period reasonably required such of time organize properly operation commence an Amish vocational school. At the commencement of such operations, judgment be and the should vacated complaint dismissed. error, State,
Johnson, Plaintiff Defendant
error. Argued January 8, 1971. State No. December 1970. Decided 47. (Also reported 502.) in 182 2d N. W.