No CrossRef data available.
FAMILY LAW ISOLATIONISM AND CHURCH, STATE, AND FAMILY - Church, State, and Family: Reconciling Traditional Teachings and Modern Liberties. By John Witte Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Pp. 454. $130.00 (cloth). ISBN: 9781316882542.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2020
- Book Review Symposium: John Witte, Jr., Church, State, and Family: Reconciling Traditional Teachings and Modern Liberties
- Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , December 2019 , pp. 490 - 495
- Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2020
1 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Sept. 2, 1990, 1577 United Nations Treaty Series 3, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en#2.
2 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8, CRC/C/GC/8 ¶ 11 (March 2, 2007), https://www.refworld.org/docid/460bc7772.html (“The Committee defines ‘corporal’ or ‘physical’ punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking,’ ‘slapping,’ ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with an implement—a whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, biting, pulling hair or boxing ears, forcing children to stay in uncomfortable positions, burning, scalding or forced ingestion (for example, washing children's mouths out with soap or forcing them to swallow hot spices). In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment is invariably degrading. In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment that are also cruel and degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example, punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child.”).
3 Wilson, Robin Fretwell & Sanders, Shaakirrah, By Faith Alone: When Religion and Child Welfare Collide, in The Contested Place of Religion in Family Law 344 (Wilson, Robin Fretwell, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 The Contested Place of Religion in Family Law appendix 1 (Robin Fretwell Wilson, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2018).
6 Wilson & Sanders, supra note 3, at 344–45.
7 Id. at 341.
8 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932).
9 See The Contested Place of Religion in Family Law, supra note 5, appendix 1 (listing Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Vermont).
10 Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 111, § 72F (2016).
11 See The Contested Place of Religion in Family Law, supra note 5, appendix 1 (listing Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).
12 Colo. Rev. Stat. 18–1-703 (2016) (emphasis added).
13 D.C. Code § 16–2301 (2015).
14 The Contested Place of Religion in Family Law, supra note 5, appendix 1 (listing Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina).
15 Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.110 (West 2015).
16 The Contested Place of Religion in Family Law, supra note 5, appendix 1.
17 N.Y. Penal Law § 35.10 (McKinney 2016).
18 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28–1413.
19 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 210.110 (2015).