Re: “The Supreme Court is right to respect parents’ faith” (July 5, Opinion):
Columnist Stephen L. Carter agrees with the U.S. Supreme Courtroom’s ruling permitting mother and father to “opt-out” their youngsters from public faculty classes that embody (one point out? two? three?) LGBTQ+ points or characters. The teachings, goes the argument, violate mother and father’ First Modification rights if youngsters are “coerced” to see supplies their mother and father would object to.
Carter does admit that publicity doesn’t essentially equal coercion, but it may “burden” a mother or father’s potential to indoctrinate their youngsters to their beliefs. Public faculties are there to show details, not faith. Little doubt, academia has fueled departure from fairy tales for hundreds of years. However can Nazi mother and father get a cross on World Warfare II classes? Can mother and father who view women as inferior to boys (Protestant and in any other case) decide their women out of faculty?
That is simply the continuation of the inaccurate perception that “publicity” makes children homosexual. In any other case, what distinction does it make? Similar to heterosexuals, LGBTQ+ folks exist on the earth. If their existence does “battle with the values” taught at residence, that’s bigotry, which fosters hate and violence. I’m wanting ahead to the case with homosexual mother and father who need to decide their youngsters out of any classes that function or embody heterosexual characters.
Cathy Moray, Everett
