On Tuesday, Christian parents argued before the Supreme Court on whether or not exposing elementary school students to LGBTQ-themed storybooks constitutes “coercion.” They said that it is unreasonable to expect young children to distinguish between a teacher’s moral precepts and their own family’s values.
According to Mahmoud v. Taylor’s Maryland parents’ lawyer Eric S. Baxter, the Montgomery County Public Schools in that state infringed upon the First Amendment by refusing to grant an opt-out request for books that “contradict their religious beliefs,” while granting exemptions for other religious objections, like those to books depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
“There’s no basis for denying opt-outs for religious reasons,” Baxter stated during oral arguments. “Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.”
Concerning whether the books just “exposed” youngsters or actively trained them, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Baxter on the matter.
“Are the books just there and no more, or are they actually being taught out of the books?” said he.
According to Baxter, the materials were meant to be used in the classroom. The board recommended using the books no less than five times before the year’s conclusion when they were initially introduced in August 2022. Sherwood School was one of the schools that pledged to read a book every day in June in honor of Pride Month.
Parents and groups fighting for religious liberty claim that this policy violates their right to free speech since it forces their children to participate in lessons that go against their religious convictions. The policy did not compel parents to alter their religious views or behavior, and parents may continue teaching their children outside of school, according to last year’s ruling by the federal appeals court known as the Fourth Circuit Court, which concluded that religious exercise rights were not violated.
Justice The question of whether reading about same-sex couples in children’s literature constitutes religious compulsion was put to Baxter by Sonia Sotomayor.
She brought up the Bible and questioned, “Is looking at two men getting married… is that the religious objection?” “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding.” “The most they’re doing is holding hands.”
In Baxter’s view, the answer is faith-based. “Our parents would object to that,” he pointed out. “Their faith teaches… they shouldn’t be exposed to information about sex during their years of innocence without being accompanied by moral principles.”
Justice Samuel Alito wanted to know if kids as young as four years old have the cognitive maturity to challenge the authority of adults’ moral and academic teachings.
“Would you agree that there comes a point when a student is able to make that distinction?” said he. This instructor of mine… isn’t going to have all the answers. Can I have different opinions from them on some issues?
I agree, Baxter.
“Indeed,” he affirmed. “And many of our clients’ objections would be diminished as their children got older.”
The importance of age, according to Baxter, is paramount in this particular instance. Even Montgomery County school authorities, he claimed, had admitted that certain texts were inappropriate for students’ age, and he blasted their stance on religious viewpoints.
“In a situation where Montgomery County’s own principals objected that these books were inappropriate for the age, they were dismissive of religion and shaming toward children who disagree,” said Baxter. “The board itself withdrew two of the books for what it said were content concerns, because it finally agreed that what parents and petitioners – and its own principals – are saying was accurate.”
This year, the Supreme Court will hear three significant issues involving religion, including Mahmoud v. Taylor.
In a case that might change the criteria for religious tax exemptions, the high court heard earlier this month a petition for tax relief from a Catholic charity group in Wisconsin.
In that case, the question is whether Catholic Charities Wisconsin, a social services organization linked to Catholic dioceses nationwide, can win an appeal of the state supreme court’s ruling that it cannot claim a religious tax exemption since it is not “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
The third case concerns the viability of a Catholic online school’s application to become the country’s inaugural religious charter school.