‘Indoctrination’: Will Supreme Court side with parents protecting kids from sexual grooming?
A lawyer for parents calling for protections for their religious rights has told justices on the Supreme Court the practices by the school district in Montgomery County, Maryland, don’t involve “exposure” to children of its LGBT ideologies.
“It’s indoctrination.”
“Our clients’ faith teaches they shouldn’t expose children during their years of innocence to instruction about sexuality without moral context,” Becket lawyer Eric Baxter told the justices. “That’s not just exposure — it’s indoctrination.”
A report from the Washington Examiner pointed out that at least five of the justices appeared to be willing to be granting protections for parents’ religious rights in the fight.
The dispute is over the decision by school officials to push LGBT ideologies to children as young as three years old, and then refuse permission for parents to opt their children out of indoctrination that would violate their religious faith.
Bringing the case was a coalition of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents.
“Several justices appeared sympathetic to the parents’ concerns, especially regarding the young age of the students. Justice Samuel Alito noted that some of the books were approved for children as young as three or four years old,” the report said.
Baxter explained Montgomery County’s curriculum imposed a “uniquely coercive” environment on much younger children, in part by designing instruction to “disrupt cisnormativity:” and challenge traditional gender beliefs.
Leftists on the court argued for giving the school district absolute authority to decide what its mandatory lessons would include, the report noted. “Justice Elena Kagan warned that granting such a right whenever a parent has a sincere religious objection could effectively turn every classroom into a battlefield.”
Baxter explained there are three levels of violation in the district program: Substantial interference with religious upbringing, pressure to abandon beliefs to access a public benefit, and discriminatory treatment, such as granting opt-outs for some religious views but not others.”
The Daily Caller News Foundation explained Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that Maryland was founded on religious liberty, but now appears intent on denying it.
“Maryland was founded on religious liberty and religious tolerance, a haven for Catholics escaping persecution from persecution in England going back to 1649,” the justice said. “I guess I’m surprised, given that this is the hill we’re going to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty.”
The arguments revealed the district does allow opt-outs for musical performances, dissections, high school sex ed classes, and more, but refuses to allow them for the books used to indoctrination young children.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that the district presents the LGBT ideology as fact, and that’s not the same as simply exposing students to an idea.