Teaching Wicca or Pagan Religions to Minors Article

Claim
It is illegal and/or there was legal consequences to teaching minors in the USA.

Rating of Claim
'''False. This claim is a myth.'''

Origins
WitchVox Author, Lark (online alias) posted an article titled "Teaching Wicca or Pagan Religions to Minors" [[va.html?a=usal&c=basics&id=12642|link]] claiming it is illegal to teach minors Magick in the USA on June 8th, 2008. The article cites "1925 the Supreme Court heard the case of Smith v. Society of Sisters in which the court recognized the absolute constitutional right of parents to determine the education and upbringing of their children" and "legal precedents regarding the rights of parents in determining the education of their children occurred in 1923 with the Supreme Court decision in Meyer v Nebraska in which the court ruled that an individual had the right under the Constitution to raise their children in accordance with the dictates of their own conscience" (Lark) as it's primary evidence. Furthermore, the author claims that legal advice was obtained for this article, in which the attorney backed these claims, affirming that "should the parent decide to take the teacher to court and claim they would not have given permission if they had really known what was being taught the chances are that the unfortunate teacher would find the court unsympathetic towards them" (Lark).

Analysis (Claims Vs. Facts & Sources)
[CLAIM] Smith v. Society of Sisters, 1925. Court recognizes constitutional right of parents to determine the education and upbringing of their children.

[FACT] There is no record of Smith v. Society of Sisters, 1925. [FACT] There is a record of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925 (Cornell Law School Records []). "The Oregon Compulsory Education Act that required attendance at public schools, forbidding private school attendance, was held unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Compulsory Education Act (Act), 1922 Or. (Wikipedia [Pierce v. Society of Sisters])."[RATING OF CLAIM] False. The primary case mentioned is falsified/non-existent. The case in relation has no mention of religion and is not related.

[CLAIM] Meyer v Nebraska, 1923."Court ruled that an individual had the right under the Constitution to raise their children in accordance with the dictates of their own conscience" (Lark). [FACT] There is a record of Meyer v Nebraska, 1923 (Cornell Law School Records [])

Summary from Cornell Law School records: "A state law forbidding, under penalty, the teaching in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, of any modern language, other than English, to any child who has not attained and successfully[p391] passed the eighth grade, invades the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and exceeds the power of the State. P. 399."[RATING OF CLAIM] False. The case does not dictate any parental rights not religious affiliations. The case is about language in the classroom and when it is appropriate to start teaching a second language (which later paved the way for starting to teach a second language in Middle school in modern times).

[CLAIM] Legal advice was obtained for this article that further confirms the claim.

[FACT] Mozert v. Hawkins County Public Schools, 1984. Case in which a group of parents sued the educational system of Hawkins County Public Schools "for damages and injunctive relief, alleging violations of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and of the fundamental right of parents to control the education and religious and moral instruction of their children" (Justia Law Records). Witchcraft is specifically mentioned in the full detailed reasoning. The defendants (the parents) case was denied and

dismissed in court as "The First Amendment does not protect the plaintiffs from exposure to morally offensive value systems or from exposure to antithetical religious ideas. Only if the plaintiffs can prove that the books at issue are teaching a particular religious faith as true (rather than as a cultural phenomenon), or teaching that the students must be saved through some religious pathway, or that no salvation is required, can it be said the mere exposure to these books is a violation of free exercise rights."[FACT] Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989. "Article 1""For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.""Article 14""1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.""2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.""3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.""(Source)"This convention was effective as of 2 September 1990 and the USA as a country signed this into our own laws.

[RATING OF CLAIM] False. Any legal counsel would have been well aware of the UN's human rights laws on children, by proxy the US legal obligation to up hold these laws and of the prior attempts by parents to take legal action have been denied as they violated children's rights at the time this article was released.