See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, supra; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939). It is, of course, beyond question that the parents have standing as defendants in a criminal prosecution to assert the religious interests of their. We said: "Here . H.R.Rep. The children were ultimately convicted in the Green County Court; this ruling was ultimately upheld in the appeals circuit. There can be no assumption that today's majority is. Supp.App. [Footnote 19] There is no intimation that the Amish employment of their children on family farms is in any way deleterious to their health, or that Amish parents exploit children at tender years. The State's argument proceeds without reliance on any actual conflict between the wishes of parents and children. We come then to the quality of the claims of the respondents concerning the alleged encroachment of Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance statute on their rights and the rights of their children to the free exercise of the religious beliefs they and their forebears have adhered to for almost three centuries. Ibid. Providing public schools ranks at the very apex of the function of a State. and successful social functioning of the Amish community for a period approaching almost three centuries and more than 200 years in this country are strong evidence that there is, at best, a speculative gain, in terms of meeting the duties of citizenship, from an additional one or two years of compulsory formal education. %%EOF Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, Sept. 9, 1817, in 17 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 417, 423-424 (Mem. However, a Lutheran minister, Reverend William C. Lindholm, took an interest in Amish legal difficulties from a religious freedom perspective and founded The National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom (partly as a result of this case) and then provided them with legal counsel. See generally J. Hostetler, Amish Society (1968); J. Hostetler & G. Huntington, Children in Amish Society (1971); Littell, Sectarian Protestantism and the Pursuit of Wisdom: Must Technological Objectives Prevail?, in Public Controls for Nonpublic Schools 61 (D. Erickson ed.1969). Recognition of the claim of the State in such a proceeding would, of course, call into question traditional concepts of parental control over the religious upbringing and education of their minor children recognized in this Court's past decisions. Terms in this set (5) Facts. After reviewing the Court’s jurisprudence assaying the state responsibility to provide education in relation to religious liberty, Burger noted: “[H]owever strong the State’s interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion or subordination of all other interests.” The Court vindicated the Amish view that sending their children to public high school would threaten their mode of life — a way of life derived from a literal interpretation of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: “do not be conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). . of Interior, Bureau of Education, Bulletin No. Nat'l Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie, United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut. Dr. John Hostetler, one of the experts on Amish society, testified that the modern high school is not equipped, in curriculum or social environment, to impart the values promoted by Amish society. Each defendant was fined the nominal sum of $5. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the families. Even more markedly than in Prince, therefore, this case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide the religious future and education of their children. See, e.g., Joint Hearings, supra, n 15, pt. denied, 377 U.S. 978 (1964). I therefore join the judgment of the Court as to respondent Jonas Yoder. in an occupation other than manufacturing or mining or an occupation found by the Secretary of Labor to be particularly hazardous for the employment of children between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years or detrimental to their health or wellbeing.". v. Grumet, Arizona Christian Sch. As in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, it is an imposition resulting from this very litigation. rights of the child that were threatened in the very litigation before the Court, and that the child had no effective way of asserting herself.". Such an accommodation, "reflects nothing more than the governmental obligation of neutrality in the face of religious differences, and does not represent that involvement of religious with secular institutions which it is the object of the Establishment Clause to forestall.". See also Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 330 U. S. 18 (1947). by those in authority over him, and if his education is truncated, his entire life may be stunted and deformed. [Footnote 3/2], It is the future of the student, not the future of the parents, that is imperiled by today's decision.