SCOTUS appears to side with parents in religious liberty dispute over storybooks

[Logophile]

You'd be amazed at what little kids are taking in. The younger the brain the faster it is absorbing what is going on around it. At one week a baby recognizes the voice of its primary caretaker, usually its mother. At 5 months a babies are using voice tones to understand the emotional level of what is going on around them; at 6 months they recognize the emotions displayed by faces, at 1 they start to know the different emotional levels of speech patterns. By 3 years a child has mastered the basic fundamentals of language and can ask precise questions about what's going on around them and how people feel. Do you think a 3 year old doesn't know what the significant adults around them including the TV adults are talking about and how they feel about the issues they talk about? They have known what voice tones meant since they were 5 months old. They just didn't have the skills to ask questions. When a child can form a question they are ready for answers. And the questions they ask are more often than not questions about controversial issues. It's the adults that don't have the skills to answer them with age appropriate language and concepts.

Then learn how to answer your children's questions before someone else answers them, preferably before high school.

A parent or parents will introduce "controversial issues" at the appropriate time for their child. It is not up to you. You will not usurp a parent's right to protect their young children so as to apply your own methodology, which is clearly what you want to do.

 

[Parker_Chess]

I can honestly see both sides on this issue. On one hand, we are a country that has religious freedom. If a book contains material contradictory to your religious convictions, then it would make sense to opt your child out. On the other hand, is this not a slippery slope? Parents will begin opting their child out of everything that challenges their religious views. This reminds me of the whole creation vs evolution in science class rooms. I side more with the school and teachers. I just think it makes more sense even if the other side probably follows the Constitution more closely.

 

[Cosmo]

Imagine being such a prude and bigot that you go all the way to SCOTUS because you don't want your kid to even be in a room where a story book about gay people is read.

Yeah WTF? I bet they don't want their kids watching porn, either. Do they think they should have a say in their kids' education or the material they view?

 

[Cosmo]

A parent or parents will introduce "controversial issues" at the appropriate time for their child. It is not up to you. You will not usurp a parent's right to protect their young children so as to apply your own methodology, which is clearly what you want to do.

Seriously, what was the problem with the opt out system?

 

[Logophile]

Seriously, what was the problem with the opt out system?

The only problem I can see is the inability of heavy handed Big Brother supporters to impose their will on other people, in this case, the people of faith. They want to undermine freedom by denying the control of parents, no different than Beijing, perhaps in a way, worse. There's nothing wrong with an "opt out" for young children

 

[Rich2018]

I can honestly see both sides on this issue. On one hand, we are a country that has religious freedom. If a book contains material contradictory to your religious convictions, then it would make sense to opt your child out. On the other hand, is this not a slippery slope? Parents will begin opting their child out of everything that challenges their religious views. This reminds me of the whole creation vs evolution in science class rooms. I side more with the school and teachers. I just think it makes more sense even if the other side probably follows the Constitution more closely.

There is nothing wrong in teaching a child about different religions. The problem is when the teacher/material professes it to be true.

 

[weaver2]

The only problem I can see is the inability of heavy handed Big Brother supporters to impose their will on other people, in this case, the people of faith. They want to undermine freedom by denying the control of parents, no different than Beijing, perhaps in a way, worse. There's nothing wrong with an "opt out" for young children

There are issues that can not be solved by simpling letting parents opt out opting out Not all, but some of the religious conservatives families are extremely verbal and speak with hostile denigration about the current issues of today and their children bring that hostility to school with them. If the majority of the district population has agreed to a school philosophy and mission of openness and inclusiveness how does the school deal with young children that are name calling, bullying, teasing and denigrating other children about about their race, religion, the sexual orientation of their family or themselves. You can punish their hostile actions and send notes home advising parents to teach tolerance or the school can model tolerance and acceptance by gently introduce these children to books and discussion about what is happening in the pictures and carrying that theme into other academic areas. Why is punishment a better solution than age appropriate books and discussionl

 

[Logophile]

There are issues that can not be solved by simpling letting parents opt out opting out Not all, but some of the religious conservatives families are extremely verbal and speak with hostile denigration about the current issues of today and their children bring that hostility to school with them. If the majority of the district population has agreed to a school philosophy and mission of openness and inclusiveness how does the school deal with young children that are name calling, bullying, teasing and denigrating other children about about their race, religion, the sexual orientation of their family or themselves. You can punish their hostile actions and send notes home advising parents to teach tolerance or the school can model tolerance and acceptance by gently introduce these children to books and discussion about what is happening in the pictures and carrying that theme into other academic areas. Why is punishment a better solution than age appropriate books and discussionl

Yours is a completely fantastical scenario with no merit whatsoever. In fact, it's propaganda crap tacitly attempting to denigrate the children of those of faith by framing them as likely juvenile delinquents. You know nothing about these children. Really, it's grossly unfair, an outright lie, but a typical leftist tactic: to cast baseless aspersions via insinuations to justify bigotry and religious persecution. This case is about opting children out of subject matter that is objectionable, nothing more. It will not result in some wholesale academic melt down

 

[weaver2]

Yours is a completely fantastical scenario with no merit whatsoever. In fact, it's propaganda crap attempting to denigrate the children of those of faith by framing them as juvenile delinquents. You know nothing about these children. Really, it's grossly unfair, an outright lie, but a typical leftist tactic: to cast baseless aspersions to justify bigotry and religious persecution. This case is about opting children out of subject matter that is objectionable, nothing more

You seem to think I was speaking specifically about the families bringing the suit. I was talking in generalities about any school district with a similar philosophy and mission and their choices in dealing with behavior that is counter to the philosophy and mission of a school district. We could reverse the entire scenario.

Try it this way: How is a school district with a philosophy and mission of competition and winner takes all going to deal with the children from families that are trying to instill cooperation instead of competition and inclusion of all not just the winners. Do you think punishing those children will work to make them competitors? Children especially young children bring their parents attitudes to school and act on them.

Having looked over Pride Puppy several statement stand out as either not true or just plain silly. It is not true that the text of the book instructs children to find pictures of things that start with the letter sound featured in the page. That is only a suggestion to the teacher of some of the activities s/he can use to extend the sound symbol connection. Another statement that seemed to stir up a lot of emotion was the suggestion that on the letter U page children could look for, among other things, underwear; the horror of push up bras and thongs seemed to be implied. The actual picture is of a little boy dressed in a cape and tights with his underwear on top of the tights. Keep in mind that about the year 2000+/- Captain Underpants appeared on the scene his large belly prominently covered with his tightie-whities in which he vanquished such evil characters as Professor Tinkle Trousers in books titled the Talking Toilets who's only words were "yum, yum,yum eat it all down" These books embraced by kids, teachers, and parents sold millions and millions of copies. They were translated into 20 different languages. It would seem that if parents and kids can deal with Captain Underpants without losing their innocence, looking for a picture of a little boy in a cape, tights and underwear is probably not going to destroy that child's religious beliefs.

Is anyone else puzzled that congregants never spoke out, let alone sued the people who were doing immense physical, psychological and sexual damage to kids are now going to the Supreme Court to claim their religious right to shield their children from teachers and schools who use a gay pride book to demonstrate inclusion.

 

[roguenuke]

Weird. Somehow I managed to get an A in AP Biology and go on to get a degree in Biological Sciences at a good university, and get a job as a molecular biologist at a biotech company without learning a thing about evolution before college.

The only people who actually need to know about evolution are biologists, and most of them don't even refer to it in their careers.

And there's no biology on the SAT.



None, really.

This is not true at all, in regards to who needs to know about Evolution. It not only affects many different fields of study, not just biology, but also is important for learning about evidence and Theories in general.

I have no idea how old you are, when you went to school, but we definitely learned about Evolution in even Honors Biology. Pretty sure a little even before that. And my son in HS now learned about Evolution too. I remember learning about it in the 90s, it sticks out because one of my classmates was mad about it, claiming they were lying about it, that it didn't happen.

 

[roguenuke]

A parent or parents will introduce "controversial issues" at the appropriate time for their child. It is not up to you. You will not usurp a parent's right to protect their young children so as to apply your own methodology, which is clearly what you want to do.

Then parents should not send their children to public school if they think certain issues are too controversial for their children to learn.

 

[roguenuke]

What part of OPT OUT do you not understand?? Nobody is telling the MAJORITY of the kids they can't attend. That is the difference. What you're suggesting and/or subscribing to is politically tyrannical and antithetical to a free nation. The case being argued may as well be the Peoples Republic of China vs. Parents because that's how Beijing likes it: no individual say

How do you determine what exact lessons a child is opted out of? What about those parents who are against desegregation, think that was wrong? Do they get to opt out of those lessons? If not, why are their views not supported?

What about if a same sex parenting couple decides to volunteer in the classroom or on the field trip with those kids whose parents "opt out"? Do those kids have to miss the field trip or the entire class for the day?

 

[Rich2018]

Then parents should not send their children to public school if they think certain issues are too controversial for their children to learn.

No, public schools need to just teach about the world's religions and not pass any judgment regarding truth, to their respective claims.

 

[roguenuke]

No, public schools need to just teach about the world's religions and not pass any judgment regarding truth, to their respective claims.

I was referring to things other than religion. religion is being taught, by most schools (or was before Christian nationalists were able to get fingers into some states' government) in that way.

Claiming "parents will introduce "controversial issues" at the appropriate time for their child" is definitely an issue because what is "controversial" is mostly subjective.

 

[Rich2018]

I was referring to things other than religion. religion is being taught, by most schools (or was before Christian nationalists were able to get fingers into some states' government) in that way.

Claiming "parents will introduce "controversial issues" at the appropriate time for their child" is definitely an issue because what is "controversial" is mostly subjective.

Are you talking about teaching evolution in science classes ?

 

[roguenuke]

Are you talking about teaching evolution in science classes ?

That is one example, out of hundreds if not more.

Flat earthers likely would think it is controversial to claim the earth is round. Those against interracial relationships would likely think it is wrong to introduce those into classrooms at all the same as those against same sex relationships do, like the parents bringing this lawsuit. Scientologists may believe it is controversial to recognize autistic children and their needs. There are still a few people today who call the Civil War "the War of Northern Aggression", so teaching the Civil War was about slavery and the facts can be "controversial" to those people. We teach about the Greek and roman and Egytian gods in many schools, from the stance of world history and how the people of that time were, which could definitely be controversial to some people who feel teaching any religion at all or any religion but theirs will negatively influence their child.

 

[Rich2018]

That is one example, out of hundreds if not more.

Flat earthers likely would think it is controversial to claim the earth is round. Those against interracial relationships would likely think it is wrong to introduce those into classrooms at all the same as those against same sex relationships do, like the parents bringing this lawsuit. Scientologists may believe it is controversial to recognize autistic children and their needs. There are still a few people today who call the Civil War "the War of Northern Aggression", so teaching the Civil War was about slavery and the facts can be "controversial" to those people. We teach about the Greek and roman and Egytian gods in many schools, from the stance of world history and how the people of that time were, which could definitely be controversial to some people who feel teaching any religion at all or any religion but theirs will negatively influence their child.

You should read Ray Bradbury's book "Fahrenheit 451".

 

[weaver2]

You should read Ray Bradbury's book "Fahrenheit 451".

Bradbury nailed it in Fahrenheit 451. Everybody should read it.

 

[roguenuke]

You should read Ray Bradbury's book "Fahrenheit 451".

I have. It's one of my favorite books.

I'm against what these parents are fighting for because they want to limit what is being taught, claiming it is "controversial", so they have some unlimited right to be the only ones to introduce "controversial" subjects to their kids. That is a stupid argument and not one that is actually truthful. It's just an excuse.

 

[Rich2018]

I have. It's one of my favorite books.

I'm against what these parents are fighting for because they want to limit what is being taught, claiming it is "controversial", so they have some unlimited right to be the only ones to introduce "controversial" subjects to their kids. That is a stupid argument and not one that is actually truthful. It's just an excuse.

I read it in school - he makes the point that many if not most books offend someone.

Schools exist to educate not to indoctrinate children to their parents' liking.