Enrolling in a public school doesn’t mean the school becomes a child’s only form of instruction. Or even the primary form, the Supreme Court found Friday when it ruled in Mahmoud v. Taylor that Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools must allow “opt-outs” for parents who, on religious grounds, do not want their children exposed to pro-LGBTQ teaching.
A group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds had been denied the ability to remove their children from a curriculum that included LGBTQ story books. The district allowed opt-outs in other areas of teaching but not this one.
At issue was whether the district’s decision violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
In a 6-3 decision that saw conservative and liberal justices change sides, the Court reversed a Fourth Circuit decision, ruling that parents must be informed and given the option to withdraw their children from LGBTQ-themed instruction, SCOTUSblog.com reported.
According to an attorney with Liberty Counsel, it’s not the first time the Court has forcefully sided with religious freedom over public education.
“We decided that issue about 53 years ago in Wisconsin v. Yoder, but it has come back up, the question being whether you could have opt-out to curriculums that parents find religiously objectionable. The First Amendment affords parents the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, and they don't surrender that at the schoolhouse gate,” Liberty Counsel attorney Daniel Schmid said on Washington Watch Friday.
Haven’t we already settled this?
Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the parents’ religious freedom rights.
The Court ruled in 1972 that Jonas Yoder and his wife had the right to remove their children from public school after the eighth grade, a common practice among Amish parents who wish to avoid their children’s exposure to values and behaviors they believe are contrary to their faith.
The Court, in a unanimous ruling then, found that education beyond the eighth grade was unnecessary to prepare children for the Amish way of life.
Fifty-three years later conservative Chief Justice John Roberts was among three dissenting votes to favor the Montgomery County School District.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan sided with the conservative majority because she believed the district’s sudden policy shift – to not allow the opt-out – discriminated against the parents.
The Maryland case is not unique, Gino Geraci, pastor emeritus of Calvary Chapel South Denver, said on American Family Radio Monday.
“There is an every-increasing commitment to chip away parental rights, and there seems to be a cultural commitment to make sure that a biblical view is challenged,” he told show host Jenna Ellis.
Roberts said a ruling in favor of the parents had the potential to create chaos for public education if parents were allowed to remove children from any curriculum that conflicted with their religious views.
“Let’s hope so,” Geraci countered. “Let's hope that there is an educational, a social, civilizational goal that we have, that we're going to have citizens, not subjects … that we’re going to have education, to have citizens who can function properly in society, rather than indoctrinated individuals who have been disconnected from a biblical worldview. “
Mahmoud v. Taylor is based on the free exercise clause, “but in this regard the free exercise of religion and fundamental rights of parents are inextricably intertwined when it comes to this,” Schmid told show host Jody Hice.
“For many parents, the right to raise their children according to the dictates of their faith requires that they prevent them from hearing some of the obscene materials that were read to elementary school children and require that they don't promote what the Bible says and what other religious faiths of the parents in this case say are sin and are forbidden. The teachers were teaching curriculum that violates what the parents were teaching at home,” the attorney said.
Not only were parents not allowed to “opt out,” the district went so far as to refuse to notify the parents when such material was being taught.
Every school day was a mystery. “The Supreme Court said you can’t do that,” Schmid said.
But Geraci says the Court’s ruling doesn’t go far enough.
“I'm actually concerned that three of the justices argued that there are chilling effects if we do not tell our children that homosexual behavior is normal and even that it has to be mainstreamed,” he said. “It just seems to me that it’s going to be challenged over and over again.”
The district’s nonsensical defense
So, why were opt-outs not available? In simple terms, so many parents were seeking opt-outs that the district couldn’t accommodate the number and still keep the curriculum, Schmid explained.
“That was their defense. But Justice [Samuel] Alito said, ‘you don’t get to create a problem and then deprive people of constitutional rights because the problem’s too big.’ That was essentially their entire argument for why they should prohibit an opt-out.”
Moving ahead, the Court’s decision has major implications for religious freedom, Schmid concluded.
“If the school and a radical school board and radical teachers want to impose a curriculum that violates the religious beliefs of the parents, they have the right to say no and they have the right to opt their children out. The First Amendment demands that. Common sense demands that. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has now demanded that.”
