On Jan. 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Mahmoud v. Taylor, the case of three families against the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland: a Muslim family, a Roman Catholic family, and a mixed Roman Catholic–Ukrainian Orthodox family. This isn’t the start of a bad joke, but parents fighting to teach their children according to their sincerely held religious beliefs.
It all started in 2022 when Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) — the largest public school district in the state — approved a slate of queer-affirming storybooks for use in grades as low as kindergarten. The district promised parents the opportunity to review the books and the ability to opt their children out of those classes. Later in the school year, without explanation, MCPS reversed its policy, in spite of parental objections. The families filed suit, seeking a temporary injunction against the policy.
District and appellate courts denied the request. The appellate court ruled that, due to the scant evidence regarding how the picture books were being used, parents could not prove their children had been or were going to be coerced by the books. In the Supreme Court filing, however, the plaintiffs argued that “under the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning, parents cannot be heard until after the damage has been done to their children. But there is no unringing that bell — by then, innocence will be lost and beliefs undermined.”
Indoctrination by Board Book
Critics claim that by taking up the case, the SCOTUS has once again inserted itself into the “culture wars.” But the books in question affirm and validate LGBT culture, and the guidelines for teachers clearly lean in one direction.
Pride Puppy! is billed by corporate media as “An alphabet primer about children chasing their dog through a pride parade.” And yet, this book “encourages children to search for images of, among other things, the ‘intersex [flag],’ a ‘[drag] king,’ ‘leather,’ a ‘lip ring,’ a ‘[drag] queen,’ ‘underwear,’ and a celebrated sex worker.” MCPS pulled Pride Puppy! from the list last December, but most of the other books remained.
In Jacob’s Room to Choose, Jacob and Sophie attempt to use the school bathrooms. But in a study in confusion, the child named Jacob — who wears a green dress — gets kicked out of the boy’s bathroom, while Sophie — dressed in shorts and a checkered shirt — gets chased out of the girl’s bathroom. I’m still not entirely sure which child is Jacob and which is Sophie. The scandalized teacher returns to the classroom and teaches her students that feelings ultimately determine gender, and thus they should be free to use whatever bathroom they choose. As the new sign near the bathroom door says: “Use the bathroom that is comfy 4 u.”
In What are Your Words, a young, genderless child can’t decide what pronouns to use. “My pronouns are like the weather. They change depending on how I feel,” he (she?) declares.
MCPS also directed teachers on how to use the books. If a child were to ask, “He can’t be a boy if he was born a girl,” the teacher should say that “when we are born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right, and sometimes they’re wrong.” (The guidance has since been updated.)
The same guidance says that any child pointing out biblical teaching regarding marriage should have his “either/or” thinking “disrupted” while the teacher points to a female best friend who “is married to another woman.” It’s hard to see how this is not coercion of a kindergartener of the most egregious kind: pitting children against their parents.
The Right to Opt-out — or In
The plaintiffs do not want to ban the books from the school system, but they do want to direct their children’s education. This is not a new or radical idea. A number of states across the nation are contemplating or passing a parents’ bill of rights.
Opt-in and opt-out policies are standard across the U.S.: 38 states allow parents to opt children out of sex education. Four states require an opt-in notice from parents, while another six require a combination of both. That’s a whopping 47 states that put parents in the driver’s seat. The remaining three states are silent on the issue.
Generally, Americans favor keeping parents in charge. The 2024 Religious Freedom Index from the Becket Fund — which represents the plaintiffs — reported that “77% [of respondents agreed] that parents should be able to opt-out their children from curriculum on gender and sexuality … if it violates their religious beliefs.” And, “only 3% [of respondents] believe that such instruction is appropriate for pre-K or kindergarten-aged children.”
Maryland does have an opt-out policy for sex ed classes. But the education board placed these books into the English language arts curriculum. Evidently, for MCPS and the lower courts, the right of parents to direct the religious instruction of their children extends only to the “family life and human sexuality unit of instruction,” and nowhere else.
While corporate media reports on the lawsuit as simply another “culture war,” for parents it strikes at the heart of parental rights to educate their children in the basic tenets of their faith. The plaintiffs made this argument in the original filing.
Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, a Muslim family, contended that “‘gender’ cannot be unwoven from biological ‘sex’ — to the extent that the two are even distinct—without rejecting the dignity and direction God bestowed on humanity from the start.”
As Christians, the Roman (Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox) and Persak (Roman Catholic) families confessed that “what God has created by His design cannot be redefined or recreated by man” and that the correct expression of sexuality exists within marriage.
The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty believes parents should be in charge. “Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The Court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.”
Roy S. Askins is executive editor of The Lutheran Witness and director of editorial for The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Communications department. Visit witness.lcms.org to learn more.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.