Every parent with a child should be interested in a case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, since the issue of parental rights and a child's innocence are at the heart of a legal fight over defining coercion.
Even if some news stories describe a legal fight over sex education, attorneys fighting for parents say the heart of the matter in this case is not the explicit nature of books about multiple genders and same-sex weddings.
Rather, the issue with the method is how a Maryland public school district chose to handle parents who objected.
Be informed, not misled.
Breitbart News says, "The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday over the religious rights of parents in Maryland to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters."
The case is the latest dispute involving religion to come before the conservative-led court. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years.
The Montgomery County public schools, in suburban Washington, D.C., introduced the storybooks as part of an effort to better reflect the district’s diverse population.
Associated Press, which Breitbart is quoting, says, "Parents sued after the school system stopped allowing them to pull their kids from lessons that included the books. The parents argue that public schools cannot force kids to participate in instruction that violates their faith, and they pointed to the opt-out provisions in sex education classes."
The schools said allowing children to opt out of the lessons had become disruptive. Lower courts backed the schools, prompting the parents’ appeal to the Supreme Court.
American Family News notes that while the issue is obviously the content of the books, which I will address in a moment, it is also about the madness in the method by which the Maryland public school district chose to treat parents who objected.
A special series of books was forced on pre-kindergarten and elementary-aged children.
Now, in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of parents from wildly different faiths – Jewish, Muslim, and Christian – are united in their pushback against the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education.
The lessons were not presented in a sex education class, something parents could see on their child’s schedule and then choose to “opt out" of lessons they deemed inappropriate.
Instead, the district labeled the lessons as part of their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative, and DEI was being woven throughout the school's curriculum.
Meg Kilgannon, a senior education fellow at Family Research Council, said on Washington Watch Monday, “This is an issue of the school not believing this is sex education.”
The Montgomery County board announced the new “inclusivity” books in the fall of 2022. A year later, it was announced that parents would no longer be allowed to opt their children out.
Perversion under the guise of "education."
One book instructs 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “(drag) queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker, according to Becket Fund, the law group representing the parents.
Five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella, and Peter Pan, the school system’s lawyers wrote.
In “Prince and Knight,” two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom and each other. In “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married. His partner is a man.
“Love, Violet” deals with a girl’s anxiety about giving a Valentine to another girl. “Born Ready” is the story of a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. “Intersection Allies” describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid.
Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents’ group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing, and inappropriate for young schoolchildren.
The writers’ group Pen America said in a court filing that what the parents want is “a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.” Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year.
A closer look at the problem.
American Family said this:
As arguments began, liberal justices began to chart a path toward peaceful coexistence.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked if mere "exposure" to same-sex couples and beliefs would amount to "coercion," wrote Sarah Parshall Perry, of Heritage Foundation, who covered arguments on X.
Eric Baxter, the attorney with Becket Fund representing the parents, pointed to the Court's Obama-era Obergefell case, the landmark same-sex marriage ruling. A promise was made then that people have "decent and honorable beliefs that same-sex relationships are immoral," and those beliefs should be protected.
Justice Elena Kagan jumped ahead, asking if this was about accessing public education in an equal manner. If so, an opt-out option could stigmatize kids on both sides of the argument, she worried.
Even if one side is made slightly uncomfortable, another has had the constitutional right of religious liberty sacrificed, making the religious liberty opt-out necessary, Baxter responded.
Sotomayor and Kagan were the leaders of hostile questioning,
Then there was this exchange:
Kagan acknowledged that this subject matter was being taught to children so young that even non-religious parents may object, but she asked, "Where can we draw the lines?"
The lines for an opt-out should be drawn then the plaintiff expresses religious beliefs, shows them to be sincere and that beliefs have been substantially infringed, Baxter responds.
Previously, the Court may have been inclined to bend to pressure from the LGBTQ movement, he speculated.
“By virtue of having Muslim parents, I think the Supreme Court may believe that they can sort of get away with making a ruling vindicating the parents' rights,” Coleman said.
"As troubling as the content, so too is the way in which it’s being forced on families," Kilgannon said.
Parents’ voices are muted in their own homes.
Not only can parents not choose for their children to opt out, but the lack of notification also means they don’t know when the lessons are presented.
Parents are blindsided and unable to counter anything that’s been presented in the classroom.
“These parents have no idea that it's happening unless their child happens to come home and ask them a question, which means that someone is presenting a value system to their child, and they're taking it,” Kilgannon said.
"The violation of religious freedom is clear," she added.
“We’re talking about elementary school children who are being told things that are contradictory to these parents' faith, to their moral values, in some cases to common sense, and they have no way of addressing this at home with their children after it's done. This is a very significant assault on parental authority.”
Takeaway
It was Vladimir Lenin who said, "Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever."
His statement carries a profound meaning and highlights the significance of early indoctrination in shaping a person's lifelong beliefs and ideologies.
Lenin, a prominent figure in the Russian Revolution, recognized the power of education and its impact on shaping political alliances. By capturing the minds of children, the Bolsheviks aimed to create a generation that would uphold and perpetuate their ideals.
The Bible says, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6).
Public education is at war, not only with parents and their rightful authority, but also for the mind and heart of the child.
Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Prayerful.