Supreme Court Ruling Is A Greenlight For Parents Who Want To Take Back Public Education:
Whether through Supreme Court precedent, statutes, or even constitutional amendments, ours is a parental rights moment that demands action to allow parents the right to do their duty and raise their children.
On June 27, the court delivered an important result for parental rights and religious liberty in Mahmoud v. Taylor. In one of the higher-profile opinions this term, a 6-3 majority sided with a group of religious parents against the attempted imposition of LGBT ideology on public school children.
The court held that the Montgomery County, Maryland, school district’s “introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder [a 1972 Supreme Court precedent] found unacceptable.”
The court was rightly troubled that the LGBT books being imposed on elementary school children were not merely a neutral introduction of concepts. First of all, there is no neutral introduction of ideas by teachers to young children, because young children are impressionable and so everything taught to young children is formative. Further, after looking in excruciating detail at the content of the curricula at issue, the court found that “these books impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are ‘hostile’ to their parents’ religious beliefs.”
Because the parents are likely to prevail with a successful religious exercise claim when this case is ultimately decided by the trial court, the Supreme Court ordered that the school must discontinue its mandatory LGBT propaganda regime while the case remains pending: “[T]he Board should be ordered to notify [parents] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”
Hiding beneath this religious exercise challenge, however, is an issue whose day has come: the question of parental rights and who controls the formation of children. Mahmoud reveals the two very different views of the role of parents and of government institutions like public schools in the formation and education of kids.
Justice Alito’s majority opinion clearly recognizes the primary right of parents to form their children, especially in matters of religious belief. “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction” (internal citations omitted). In this (proper and traditional) view, parents decide the beliefs and practices that children will be exposed to, and schools cannot override those decisions.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent paints a very different picture:
Public schools, this Court has said, are “at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.” … They offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs. Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality.
There are two problematic strains of thought here. First, the dissent envisions public schools, not parents, as the primary means by which children are formed. The opinion speaks as if schools, not families, are the fundamental way that children are introduced to society and taught how to be citizens. This view has become prevalent on the left today and has made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. --->READ MORE HERE
The left is a cult — and parents can fight it, with Supreme Court’s blessing:
In a landmark ruling last month, the Supreme Court slapped down a public-school district’s mandatory lessons on sexual topics for young children — and gave parents the power to push back against leftist indoctrination in school.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, parents in Montgomery County, Md., argued that mandatory teaching of LGBT-themed books violated their families’ religious beliefs.
They didn’t seek to remove the books — only the right to opt their children out of lessons that used them. The court backed them.
The district’s instruction promoted the idea that gender is fluid and interchangeable, a notion that runs against the teachings of every major monotheistic religion: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Its LGBT teachings are part of a secular belief system that deliberately aims to supplant those traditional faiths with a new one.
Leftism today increasingly functions not merely as a political ideology but as a full-fledged secular religion, complete with its own moral code, dogmas, rituals and rules of excommunication.
Like traditional religion, it offers a comprehensive worldview, one centered not on God or transcendent truth but on the sacredness of personal autonomy, identity and self-expression.
Its doctrines — absolute tolerance, sexual liberation and equity over equality — are treated as unquestionable axioms, enforced with the fervor of religious orthodoxy.
Public rituals like pronoun declarations, land acknowledgments and DEI trainings serve as liturgical acts of belonging and penance.
Sacred symbols like the pride flag or protest slogans function as talismans of moral clarity, and dissent from the liberal consensus results in a kind of modern heresy trial: cancellation, professional ruin or public shaming. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK
here, GETTR
here, and TWITTER
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment