On Jan.  , 17, 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Mahmoud v. Taylor, the circumstance of three people against the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland: a Muslim home, a Roman Catholic family, and a combined Roman Catholic–Ukrainian Orthodox home. Kids fighting to teach their children according to their fervently religious views, not as a joke begins.
The largest public school city in the state, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), approved a stone of queer-affirming stories for use in scores as low as school in 2022. Parents were given the option to examine the books and the option to choose their kids out of those classes by the area. Later in the school year, without reason, MCPS reversed its plan, in spite of parental concerns. The people filed a lawsuit and sought a momentary lawsuit against the plan.
The plea was turned down by region and appellate courts. Parents may not demonstrate that their kids had been or were going to be coerced by the pictures because there was so little information regarding how the photo books were being used, the appellate judge ruled. In the Supreme Court processing, yet, the claimants argued that” under the Third Raceway logic, parents may be heard until after the damage has been done to their kids. But there is no unringing that bell — by therefore, sincerity will be lost and ideas undermined”.
Education through a board guide
Critics claim that by bringing the case away, the SCOTUS has once more re-entangled itself in the” society war.” However, the teaching recommendations for teachers evidently lean in one direction while the books in question recognize and validate Gay culture.
Pride Puppy! is described by the media as” An word primer about kids chasing their dog through a confidence parade.” And already, this text “encourages children to search for images of, among other things, the’ intersex]flag],’ a ‘]drag] prince,’ ‘ buckskin,’ a’ lip ring,’ a ‘]drag] queen,’ ‘ underwear,’ and a famous sex worker”. MCPS pulled Pride Puppy! from the list next December, but most of the different books remained.
In Jacob’s Room to Select, Jacob and Sophie try to use the class rooms. But in a study in distress, the kid named Jacob— who wears a natural dress — gets kicked out of the boy’s toilet, while Isabel — dressed in shorts and a checkered top — gets chased out of the woman’s bathroom. Which child is Sophie and Jacob, and which is Sophie, I’m still unsure. The scandalized teacher returns to the classroom and instructs her students that gender should be free to use any bathroom they choose. Use the bathroom that is comfortable for you, according to the new sign next to the bathroom door.
In What are Your Words, a young, genderless child can’t decide what pronouns to use. ” My pronouns are like the weather. They change depending on how I feel”, he ( she? ) declares.
Additionally, MCPS gave instruction for using the books to teachers. When a child is asked,” He can’t be a boy if he was born a girl,” the teacher should state that” when we are born, people make a guess about our gender and label us either “boy” or “girl” based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right, and sometimes they’re wrong”. ( The guidance has since been updated. )
The same instruction advises that any child who criticizes biblical teaching on marriage should think differently while the teacher refers to a female best friend who “is married to another woman” It’s difficult to see how this is not coercion against a kindergartener of the most egregious kind: pitting children against their parents.
The Right to Opt-out — or In
The plaintiffs do not want to ban the books from the school system, but they do want to direct their children’s education. This is not a radical or new idea. A number of states across the country are considering or passing a parents ‘ bill of rights.
Opt-in and opt-out policies are standard across the U. S.: 38 states allow parents to opt children out of sex education. Four states demand parental consent, while another six demand a combination of both. That’s a whopping 47 states that put parents in the driver’s seat. The issue is not being raised by the remaining three states.
Generally, Americans favor keeping parents in charge. According to the Becket Fund’s 2024 Religious Freedom Index, “77 % ]of respondents agreed ] that parents should be able to opt-out their children from gender and sexuality curriculum if it goes against their religious beliefs.” And, “only 3 % ]of respondents ] believe that such instruction is appropriate for pre-K or kindergarten-aged children”.
Maryland does have an opt-out policy for sex ed classes. However, the educational board included these books in the English language arts curriculum. The right of parents to direct the religious instruction of their children only extends to the “family life and human sexuality unit of instruction” and not elsewhere, according to MCPS and the lower courts.
For parents, the lawsuit strikes at the heart of parental rights to educate their children in the fundamental tenets of their faith, even though the corporate media portrays it as yet another” culture war.” This claim was made by the original filing by the plaintiffs.
A Muslim couple named Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat argued that “generic cannot be unwoven from biological’sex’ without rejecting the dignity and direction that God gave humanity from the beginning.”
The Roman ( Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox ) and Persak ( Roman Catholic ) families as Christians both admitted that marriage allows for the proper expression of sexuality.
Parents should be in charge, according to The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. ” Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents ‘ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency”, said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. ” The Court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality”.
The Lutheran Witness executive editor and director of editorial for the Missouri Synod Communications department of The Lutheran Church. Roy S. Askins. Visit witness. lcms. org to learn more.
