Other "Rant posts" can be found by clicking here.

Nine-year-old Betty was jabbering away as she walked down the streets of Brockton, Massachusetts that December evening. She loved to go with her Aunt Sara when she went to preach and give out religious literature, and she went every chance she got. Even at the young age of nine, Betty’s love for the Lord was her inspiration for worshiping by sharing her faith with people on the street.

Sarah Pierce typically had the children stay home when she went out in the evenings to preach and pass out literature, but this day was different. As she went to leave the house that evening, Betty’s eyes filled tears of disappointment when Sarah told her she would have to stay home. Sarah always wanted to do her best to encourage Betty, and as long as they didn’t stay out unreasonably late, Sarah decided there would be no harm if Betty came along.

The evening proved to be rather uneventful. No one had expressed any interest in their literature or preaching. But, just as Sarah began to think about heading home, she saw him.

There were moments when Sarah wondered if Mr. Perkins might be stalking her family, the way he always seemed to be right there ready to harass them about their religious activities. He had been a nuisance to no end. Sarah took a deep breath as he approached her, and braced herself for the exchange that would surely ensue.

“Why, Mrs. Pierce!” Mr. Perkins exclaimed with a friendliness so sappy it could only be fake. “What a surprise to see you out and about with your children, especially since our last chat. Shouldn’t these darlings be home in bed? And where did they get these magazines you’re selling? You didn’t give these to them, did you?”

They both knew the answer full well, but without giving a second thought to the potential consequences of her answer Sarah responded. “Yes, I gave them to her, but we aren’t selling these magazines. We ask for a voluntary donation of $0.05 to help cover our printing costs, but we are certainly happy to give a copy to anyone who asks, even if they do not wish to donate.”

“You know, Mrs. Pierce,” Mr. Perkins continued, “I’ve warned you about this type of activity before. Girls under the age of 18 are not allowed to sell magazines under the child-labor laws. Now, it’s late, I’m sure this little girl is tired from trying to sell these magazines all evening. I’d like to see you on your way home with these precious little ones in the next five minutes or so. Otherwise I’m going to have no choice to report you to the authorities. Please understand it’s the children’s welfare I’m concerned about, as I’m sure you are too.”

His “concern” and pasted-on smile made Sarah want to vomit. Mr. Perkins sure had a talent for being condescending while appearing supportive. She didn’t know what his problem with religion was, or why he had chosen to target her family, but she had no intention of engaging him anymore this evening.

“Mr. Perkins, I'm not going through this any more. We've been through it time and time again. This child is exercising her God-given right and her constitutional right to preach the gospel. I'm going home now to put the little girl to bed.”

* * * * * * *

Mr. Perkins made good on his threat, and Sarah was criminally charged with violating the child-labor laws. First, Sarah was accused of giving Betty the religious literature with the intent to sell it. Second, Sarah was accused of allowing Betty to attempt to actually sell it. Sarah was facing up to a $200.00 fine and up to 2 months in jail...maybe both!

Sarah knew that our Constitution recognizes that all people have the right to freedom of religion. She also knew that that same Constitution limited our government from prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion. Sarah also had no problems with the state protecting the welfare and safety of children. Certainly, Betty’s safety had always been of paramount concern to Sarah, and she would never do anything to place Betty in danger. Sarah was certain that the child labor laws, although well intended, were never meant to restrict worship and faith.

However, the USSC in a 5-4 decision didn’t agree.

The Court basically said that preaching is “not the primary use of the highways” and therefore when a child was unnecessarily on the street via the sidewalk the child was at an increased risk. Just because adults are free to take such risks, they cannot allow their children to “become martyrs” as well. Religious freedom does not shield a parent from State intervention to protect the safety of a child, and the court felt this case was a worthy example.

The Court used this example: Adults are free to enter saloons. The State has the right to prohibit a child from doing so. Since the State was free to regulate a child’s coming and going and activities in a saloon, they should also be free to regulate the child when the location is a sidewalk.

Sarah had explained that the so-called risk to Betty was negated because Sarah was right there with her, watching over her, protecting her. But the court said the situation “[is] difficult enough for adults to cope with and wholly inappropriate for children, especially of tender years, to face. Other harmful possibilities could be stated, of emotional excitement and psychological or physical injury.” (Emphasis added by me).

And with that, it was settled. Sarah had violated the law, and Betty was no longer allowed to pass out her literature.

I wonder whatever happened to Betty who, if my math is right, should be in her 70’s. Did this case affect her faith? Did her family move to a different state with more favorable child-labor laws? If anyone knows, comment away!

Disclaimer #1: I am not an attorney, nothing I say is legal advice, and be aware that I took some writers liberty to develop the story (i.e. although there had been at least one previous encounter, I don’t think Mr. Perkins had been “stalking” the Prince family). I would encourage you to read the Prince v. Massachusetts decision for yourself.

Disclaimer #2: In case it wasn’t already obvious, I think this was largely a despicable decision. Personally, I’m in favor of Justice Murphy’s dissent.