In a major ruling on Friday, the United States Supreme Court stood with parents in a case that involves religious freedom and public education.
Judges saw that a group of parents in Maryland can choose their children from the curricula that they say violates their religious beliefs while a lawsuit continues against the educational area. The ruling erupted 6-3 along the ideological lines of the court.
The opinion of the Supreme Court comes amid the ongoing clashes on cultural issues and the rights of parents, and on a broader scale, the primary purpose of American public schools. In this case, Mahmoud v. TaylorThe conservative majority decided that the Education Council in Montgomery is violating the rights of the first amendment to parents by preventing them from withdrawing their children from the instructions involved in books titled LGBTQ.
Why did we write this
In a case that I have seen closely on religious freedom and public education, the Supreme Court sided with parents who wanted to choose their children from the materials titled LGBTQ.
Orthodox parents argue the Muslim, Catholics and Ukrainians who filed the lawsuit that the council’s policy violates their right to exercise their religion freely. In the opinion of the majority, Judge Samuel Alto said that they are likely to succeed in their claims.
The Supreme Court has long written the rights of parents to direct “religious education” to their children. “We have seen that these rights are violated by government policies that intervene largely[e] With religious development for children. “
Neil McClaski, director of the Cato Institute at the Kato Institute, says the decision is a step in the right direction.
He says: “It is better than not allowing canceling subscription operations, in terms of freedom.” Now, “at least if you think something is imposed on your children in a violation of your religion, you can remove it from this lesson.”
Judge Sonia Sotomoor, who does not agree with the idea that the decision simply supports the precedent of the Supreme Court. She wrote that the ruling will have a much wider effect.
“The court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to” accurate “topics, unlike the religious principles” that parents want to instill in their children. “The result will be a chaos for public schools for this nation.”
Justin is a driver, a professor of law at Yale University, who was a co -author of a brief summary to support the school council.
He said in an e -mail that this decision “succeeds in opening the Bandura Fund in countless classes in public schools in our nation.” “It gives unwanted parents and students in fact, in fact, the lessons of individual schools and duties, and thus enhance educational chaos.”
Parents’ rights and controversial curricula
The curriculum in the case is a selection of “comprehensive LGBTQ” comic books that will be taught to students from kindergarten until the fifth grade. Books contain titles such as “PRIDE PUPPY”, “ONCLE BOBBY’s Wedding” and “Intelligence Allies”, which has sex and sex.
The stories revolve around “a family attending an offer for the ritual, a sister’s daughter who meets her husband, and a prince who is in love with the knight while fighting a dragon in a legendary kingdom, and a girl who feels tense from giving Valentine’s Day to steal her, and the participation of a sexual transformed boy in his sexual identity with his family,” according to legal files by the Montguri Provincial Council.
The school council argues that the books, which have been approved to teach English language arts in primary schools, are in line with their attempts to better represent students and families. Montgomery County Schools, the largest region in Maryland, serves only 160,000 students outside Washington, DC, one of the most religiously diverse places in the United States.
The educational zone said that books are not used in any lessons about sex or sexual activity. “No student is required or he is expected to change his views on his views on him, or any other student, or sex or gender tendencies.”
However, parents of the various backgrounds of faith want to be able to withdraw their children from any instructions using books. In the opinion of the majority, Judge Alto said they had this right. He wrote that the books are discussed, “clearly designed to present some values and beliefs as things that must be celebrated and some opposite values and beliefs, such as things that must be rejected.”
He pointed out that the policy of the board of directors encourages teachers to correct and accuse children of being “painful” when they express a degree of religious confusion.
“What parents are looking for are not the right to manage the curricula of public schools. Rather, their children are published from certain educational requirements that enhance their firm right to” direct “religious education” to their children. “
Unlimited subscription?
With the confirmation of this confirmation, the three liberal judges of the court expressed their concerns about the slippery slope that the ruling might make. Do you escalate from the judicial collapse that demands the abolition of subscriptions based on faith from other courses, from development to the roles of women in society?
“No, in the context of public schools or anywhere else, this court saw that merely exposure to concepts that do not contradict religious beliefs can lead to a demand for the first amendment,” says Judge Sotomiore.
Ira Loubu, an honorary professor at the Faculty of Law at George Washington University, who co -signed a summary of the illiterate to support the school council.
He adds that the opinion made “no attempt” to limit his contract for LGBTQ+issues.
This is said to raise a precedent that parents cannot simply object to their children’s exposure to ideas that their parents do not agree. “This has been the law 40 years ago … if exposure is only, and there is no assurance of some kind, your religious freedom is not undermined.”
In a press call shortly after the fall of opinion, Grace Morrison, the mother of Montgomery County, called for a child with Down syndrome, to judge families.
“grant [my daughter’s] “Unfortunately, we had to remove her from school to protect her from this confusion, a sacrifice that no parents should be forced to present.”
Dr. McClaski of the Kato Institute says, it is also possible that there will be a chilling effect from the Kato Institute.
He says: “What I expect to continue to see is that if it is a public school that serves a set of dispute over the topics, they will tend to avoid controversial topics.”
