No more LGBTQ brainwashing — SCOTUS revives – Latest News
The Supreme Court on Friday handed down a sweeping victory for parental rights and spiritual freedom — and dealt a devastating blow to the progressive zealots bent on brainwashing America’s kids.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, Montgomery County, Md., mother and father fought their native faculty board over a coverage requiring younger kids to learn books centered on LGBTQ+ id.
The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of the mother and father, who sought the correct to decide their youngsters out of classes that undermine their non secular beliefs.
In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito let the books converse for themselves by way of coloration reproductions of their pages.
There was no higher method to exhibit that these weren’t books selling tolerance and acceptance, however radical makes an attempt at indoctrination.
“Pride Puppy,” half of the district’s kindergarten curriculum, consists of a phrase search itemizing topics detailed within the e-book’s illustrations: drag king, drag queen, high heels, lip ring, lace, leather-based.
Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore.
Another e-book, “Born Ready,” options a very younger youngster who identifies as transgender. In it, the character’s older brother protests, “This doesn’t make sense. You can’t become a boy. You have to be born one.”
Their mom scolds him: “Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.”
The message is evident: If you need points of intercourse and gender to make sense, you aren’t a loving individual.
The faculty board, Alito wrote, “encourages the teachers to correct the children and accuse them of being ‘hurtful’ when they express a degree of religious confusion.”
They use the books to do it.
At the center of the case was the declare that folks’ non secular rights have been being violated.
But the deeper actuality remained unstated: The school-district progressives weren’t merely undermining the beliefs of Muslim, Christian and Mormon mother and father.
They have been making an attempt to induct the kids of these households into their own ideology — one which dismisses organic actuality and enshrines “love,” as they outline it, as the one acceptable fact.
The battle additionally uncovered a stark divide between the progressive activists who run the county faculty system and the non secular, largely immigrant households the district serves.
Accustomed to lockstep minority assist, leftist county officers have been blindsided when the communities they declare to characterize pushed back.
And when the minority mother and father protested, the progressives lashed out.
The curriculum dispute “puts some Muslim families on the same side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots,” Montgomery County Council member Kristin Mink complained in a single contentious public assembly.
School board member Lynne Harris disparaged a Muslim scholar who testified at one other assembly, telling the press she felt “kind of sorry” for the woman and speculating she was “parroting dogma” she’d realized from her mother and father.
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our every day Post Opinion e-newsletter!
Thanks for signing up!
The Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded apologies from each officers.
When progressives rallied exterior the Supreme Court during oral arguments, speaker after speaker insisted the district’s coverage was about instructing tolerance to kids of supposedly bigoted mother and father.
After the ruling got here down, the district declared in an e-mail to employees, “This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system.”
But if tolerance and inclusivity have been actually its targets, the county would have sought to respect the values of non secular households.
No, the target was ideological control over each youngster within the county’s colleges.
The progressive activists’ message was brutally easy: Our means or the freeway. This is what we do in public colleges. If you don’t prefer it, you’ll be able to pay to teach your youngsters privately, or homeschool them your self.
Alito flatly rejected that argument.
“Public education is a public benefit,” he wrote, “and the government cannot ‘condition’ its ‘availability’ on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.”
In addition, he noticed, “since education is compulsory, the parents are not being asked simply to forgo a public benefit.”
This case laid naked the hypocrisy of progressive ideology — and the flimsiness of these convictions when challenged.
Progressives in Montgomery County had a selection: To respect the non secular beliefs of minority households, or to pressure them to desert these beliefs and cave to leftist views on gender and sexuality.
Or, of course, the district might have dropped its leftist indoctrination mission altogether.
Rather than offering an unbiased public schooling to those low-income, immigrant non secular households, faculty officers informed them to depart in the event that they wouldn’t comply.
Mahmoud v. Taylor revealed the left’s true colours on tolerance and privilege.
But with its choice, the Supreme Court despatched an unmistakable message: Parents’ rights will not be subject to the whims of progressive activists — they usually don’t evaporate on the schoolhouse door.
Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars.
