Glad MCPS is getting sued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

I'm going to the church of the spaghetti monster and stupidity greatly offends me. I think we should have it banned. Does anyone want to join me in the class action against stupidity?

1. Get your church recognized as a church

2. File a lawsuit and try your luck

1. That is a church

2. They are both very litigious and very successful in their litigation.

Then may the best church win.

HOw about we keep religion out of schools altogether? Instill those values at home if you wish, but I don't care what religious sensibilities the curriculum is offending.

That's nice. Your opinion doesn't decide. A judge, in a court of law, does.

Didn't they already decide to separate church and state a long time ago though? Where would I have seen that....? Oh yeah, the constitution.

Your understanding of the Constitution stinks.

Separation of Church and State means the government doesn't have an official religion. Freedom of Religion ensures that people cannot be COMPELLED to do things that violate their faith.

Perfect example of this is standing for the pledge of allegiance: Which schools were forced to not compel students to do for First Amendment reasons in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Reciting the pledge of allegiance is a long tradition in U.S. schools. It’s also a long tradition for some students to stay silent or sit during the pledge, as a way of expressing their political or religious beliefs. Somewhat more recently, student athletes have held silent protests while the national anthem plays at high school and college football games. Teachers, coaches, and administrators regularly try to punish these students, but they have to answer to the First Amendment and the constitutional right to freedom of expression in public schools.

Silence and Sitting Count as Speech
As far back as 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring all public school students to recite the pledge of allegiance was a violation of their First Amendment rights, because free speech includes the right not to speak against your beliefs (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). And as the Court made clear more than 20 years later, public schools must also respect students right to express their opinions through actions (known as “symbolic speech”), as long as they aren’t being too disruptive. (Learn more about when schools may limit students' free speech rights.)

The Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed the issue of students refusing to stand for the pledge or the national anthem—clear examples of symbolic speech. But federal appellate courts have agreed that public schools may not force students to stand during the pledge. And just as public schools (including colleges and universities) shouldn’t punish students for exercising their First Amendment rights, they also shouldn’t withhold privileges—like participation in school sports or attending school games—for the same actions.

So again, there's precedent for letting students opt out of school experiences or curriculum that violate their faith. MCPS is on shaky ground, in my opinion.

They can't require them to write an essay celebrating gay people -- that would be the analogy. But they can require them to sit there and listen to the book (not requiring any speech), and can probably require them to write an essay on the book provided that they don't mandate the content (e.g., the kid could write how it's awful that Uncle Steve ir marrying his friend Doug, because it violates God's law and now they will both burn in hell --- I think the school could not fail them for expressing that opinion rather than celebrating how happy Steve and Doug will be).
The 1970s Supreme Court would tell these Plaintiffs to go pound sand. But in our new theocracy, ACB and her friends would probably side with the Plaintiffs. Unclear whether they'd get to 5 or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

LGBTQ "sexual norms" like getting married. Or existing.

In any case, if you're saying that MCPS is excluding Muslim people by including LGBTQ people, that's just factually incorrect. How do I know this? Because there are Muslim people who are LGBTQ (or LGBTQ people who are Muslim, whichever way around you want to have it). "Pride Puppy!" is not an anti-Muslim book, or an anti-Christian book, or an anti-anybody book, except maybe anti- people who don't like rainbows or puppies.

MCPS is excluding Muslim people because they are forcing material on them that offends them, makes them uncomfortable, and violates their religious beliefs. It's really that simple so I don't know why you don't get it.

Read the lawsuit. I think the parents suing explain their stance quite well.

My kid had some books forced on them in middle school that offended me, made me uncomfortable, and violated my religious beliefs. Specifically: "The Boy In The Striped Pajamas" and "Friedrich". Astonishingly stupid books that provided a fundamentally, historically, offensively incorrect view of the systematic murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others (including LGBTQ people). So my kid and I had some discussions about why these books were so bad, and the kid read some other, good books, as well. Maybe I should have sued instead, on grounds that the First Amendment gives me the right to require the public school system not to assign my kid offensively stupid books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

I'm going to the church of the spaghetti monster and stupidity greatly offends me. I think we should have it banned. Does anyone want to join me in the class action against stupidity?

1. Get your church recognized as a church

2. File a lawsuit and try your luck

1. That is a church

2. They are both very litigious and very successful in their litigation.

Then may the best church win.

HOw about we keep religion out of schools altogether? Instill those values at home if you wish, but I don't care what religious sensibilities the curriculum is offending.

That's nice. Your opinion doesn't decide. A judge, in a court of law, does.

Didn't they already decide to separate church and state a long time ago though? Where would I have seen that....? Oh yeah, the constitution.

Your understanding of the Constitution stinks.

Separation of Church and State means the government doesn't have an official religion. Freedom of Religion ensures that people cannot be COMPELLED to do things that violate their faith.

Perfect example of this is standing for the pledge of allegiance: Which schools were forced to not compel students to do for First Amendment reasons in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Reciting the pledge of allegiance is a long tradition in U.S. schools. It’s also a long tradition for some students to stay silent or sit during the pledge, as a way of expressing their political or religious beliefs. Somewhat more recently, student athletes have held silent protests while the national anthem plays at high school and college football games. Teachers, coaches, and administrators regularly try to punish these students, but they have to answer to the First Amendment and the constitutional right to freedom of expression in public schools.

Silence and Sitting Count as Speech
As far back as 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring all public school students to recite the pledge of allegiance was a violation of their First Amendment rights, because free speech includes the right not to speak against your beliefs (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). And as the Court made clear more than 20 years later, public schools must also respect students right to express their opinions through actions (known as “symbolic speech”), as long as they aren’t being too disruptive. (Learn more about when schools may limit students' free speech rights.)

The Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed the issue of students refusing to stand for the pledge or the national anthem—clear examples of symbolic speech. But federal appellate courts have agreed that public schools may not force students to stand during the pledge. And just as public schools (including colleges and universities) shouldn’t punish students for exercising their First Amendment rights, they also shouldn’t withhold privileges—like participation in school sports or attending school games—for the same actions.

So again, there's precedent for letting students opt out of school experiences or curriculum that violate their faith. MCPS is on shaky ground, in my opinion.

They can't require them to write an essay celebrating gay people -- that would be the analogy. But they can require them to sit there and listen to the book (not requiring any speech), and can probably require them to write an essay on the book provided that they don't mandate the content (e.g., the kid could write how it's awful that Uncle Steve ir marrying his friend Doug, because it violates God's law and now they will both burn in hell --- I think the school could not fail them for expressing that opinion rather than celebrating how happy Steve and Doug will be).
The 1970s Supreme Court would tell these Plaintiffs to go pound sand. But in our new theocracy, ACB and her friends would probably side with the Plaintiffs. Unclear whether they'd get to 5 or not.

The kids have to do assignments based on these LGBTQ books. That was the case for my 4th Grade daughter who had to read a Boy Named Penelope. She found the book, story and experience to be very confusing and didn't enjoy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

I'm going to the church of the spaghetti monster and stupidity greatly offends me. I think we should have it banned. Does anyone want to join me in the class action against stupidity?

1. Get your church recognized as a church

2. File a lawsuit and try your luck

1. That is a church

2. They are both very litigious and very successful in their litigation.

Then may the best church win.

HOw about we keep religion out of schools altogether? Instill those values at home if you wish, but I don't care what religious sensibilities the curriculum is offending.

That's nice. Your opinion doesn't decide. A judge, in a court of law, does.

Didn't they already decide to separate church and state a long time ago though? Where would I have seen that....? Oh yeah, the constitution.

Your understanding of the Constitution stinks.

Separation of Church and State means the government doesn't have an official religion. Freedom of Religion ensures that people cannot be COMPELLED to do things that violate their faith.

Perfect example of this is standing for the pledge of allegiance: Which schools were forced to not compel students to do for First Amendment reasons in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Reciting the pledge of allegiance is a long tradition in U.S. schools. It’s also a long tradition for some students to stay silent or sit during the pledge, as a way of expressing their political or religious beliefs. Somewhat more recently, student athletes have held silent protests while the national anthem plays at high school and college football games. Teachers, coaches, and administrators regularly try to punish these students, but they have to answer to the First Amendment and the constitutional right to freedom of expression in public schools.

Silence and Sitting Count as Speech
As far back as 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring all public school students to recite the pledge of allegiance was a violation of their First Amendment rights, because free speech includes the right not to speak against your beliefs (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). And as the Court made clear more than 20 years later, public schools must also respect students right to express their opinions through actions (known as “symbolic speech”), as long as they aren’t being too disruptive. (Learn more about when schools may limit students' free speech rights.)

The Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed the issue of students refusing to stand for the pledge or the national anthem—clear examples of symbolic speech. But federal appellate courts have agreed that public schools may not force students to stand during the pledge. And just as public schools (including colleges and universities) shouldn’t punish students for exercising their First Amendment rights, they also shouldn’t withhold privileges—like participation in school sports or attending school games—for the same actions.

So again, there's precedent for letting students opt out of school experiences or curriculum that violate their faith. MCPS is on shaky ground, in my opinion.

They can't require them to write an essay celebrating gay people -- that would be the analogy. But they can require them to sit there and listen to the book (not requiring any speech), and can probably require them to write an essay on the book provided that they don't mandate the content (e.g., the kid could write how it's awful that Uncle Steve ir marrying his friend Doug, because it violates God's law and now they will both burn in hell --- I think the school could not fail them for expressing that opinion rather than celebrating how happy Steve and Doug will be).
The 1970s Supreme Court would tell these Plaintiffs to go pound sand. But in our new theocracy, ACB and her friends would probably side with the Plaintiffs. Unclear whether they'd get to 5 or not.

Look at the signature block. The Becket fund is pushing this, so I'd assume the goal is to get it to the Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

LGBTQ "sexual norms" like getting married. Or existing.

In any case, if you're saying that MCPS is excluding Muslim people by including LGBTQ people, that's just factually incorrect. How do I know this? Because there are Muslim people who are LGBTQ (or LGBTQ people who are Muslim, whichever way around you want to have it). "Pride Puppy!" is not an anti-Muslim book, or an anti-Christian book, or an anti-anybody book, except maybe anti- people who don't like rainbows or puppies.

MCPS is excluding Muslim people because they are forcing material on them that offends them, makes them uncomfortable, and violates their religious beliefs. It's really that simple so I don't know why you don't get it.

Read the lawsuit. I think the parents suing explain their stance quite well.

It doesn't violate their religious beliefs to hear that gay people exist (and that they get married or have parades). It may violate their religion for them to engage in same-sex sexual activities, or to fund such activities, or to marry a person of the same sex. But no one is requiring their kids to do that. It's not like they are being required to eat bacon at school, or required to kiss someone of the same sex, or required to do tequila shots, or anything else that might actually violate their religion. It's really that simple, so I don't know why you don't get it.

The books don't just say, "Hey, gay people exist." They advocate and push for specific viewpoints on gender and sexuality in a one-sided way.

It would be fair if the book was about the SPECTRUM of sexuality and gender and included all viewpoints, but it doesn't.

Which book? Because Pride Puppy! actually is about the SPECTRUM of sexuality and gender. Should it include the viewpoint that being LGBTQ is bad? Maybe the author/illustrator should have added some protestors holding "You will burn in hell!" signs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

LGBTQ "sexual norms" like getting married. Or existing.

In any case, if you're saying that MCPS is excluding Muslim people by including LGBTQ people, that's just factually incorrect. How do I know this? Because there are Muslim people who are LGBTQ (or LGBTQ people who are Muslim, whichever way around you want to have it). "Pride Puppy!" is not an anti-Muslim book, or an anti-Christian book, or an anti-anybody book, except maybe anti- people who don't like rainbows or puppies.

MCPS is excluding Muslim people because they are forcing material on them that offends them, makes them uncomfortable, and violates their religious beliefs. It's really that simple so I don't know why you don't get it.

Read the lawsuit. I think the parents suing explain their stance quite well.

My kid had some books forced on them in middle school that offended me, made me uncomfortable, and violated my religious beliefs. Specifically: "The Boy In The Striped Pajamas" and "Friedrich". Astonishingly stupid books that provided a fundamentally, historically, offensively incorrect view of the systematic murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others (including LGBTQ people). So my kid and I had some discussions about why these books were so bad, and the kid read some other, good books, as well. Maybe I should have sued instead, on grounds that the First Amendment gives me the right to require the public school system not to assign my kid offensively stupid books.

You were certainly free to try and sue if you felt so aggrieved. The fact that you didn't doesn't preclude these Muslim parents from doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

LGBTQ "sexual norms" like getting married. Or existing.

In any case, if you're saying that MCPS is excluding Muslim people by including LGBTQ people, that's just factually incorrect. How do I know this? Because there are Muslim people who are LGBTQ (or LGBTQ people who are Muslim, whichever way around you want to have it). "Pride Puppy!" is not an anti-Muslim book, or an anti-Christian book, or an anti-anybody book, except maybe anti- people who don't like rainbows or puppies.

MCPS is excluding Muslim people because they are forcing material on them that offends them, makes them uncomfortable, and violates their religious beliefs. It's really that simple so I don't know why you don't get it.

Read the lawsuit. I think the parents suing explain their stance quite well.

My kid had some books forced on them in middle school that offended me, made me uncomfortable, and violated my religious beliefs. Specifically: "The Boy In The Striped Pajamas" and "Friedrich". Astonishingly stupid books that provided a fundamentally, historically, offensively incorrect view of the systematic murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others (including LGBTQ people). So my kid and I had some discussions about why these books were so bad, and the kid read some other, good books, as well. Maybe I should have sued instead, on grounds that the First Amendment gives me the right to require the public school system not to assign my kid offensively stupid books.

I didn't read those books but often see them assigned or recommended -- I'd actually be really interested in your critique of them. It's hard to find good historical fiction (so much of it is ham-handed), but it's also a great entre point for kids into learning history. Also would be interested in your recommendation for good books!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

I'm going to the church of the spaghetti monster and stupidity greatly offends me. I think we should have it banned. Does anyone want to join me in the class action against stupidity?

1. Get your church recognized as a church

2. File a lawsuit and try your luck

1. That is a church

2. They are both very litigious and very successful in their litigation.

Then may the best church win.

HOw about we keep religion out of schools altogether? Instill those values at home if you wish, but I don't care what religious sensibilities the curriculum is offending.

That's nice. Your opinion doesn't decide. A judge, in a court of law, does.

Didn't they already decide to separate church and state a long time ago though? Where would I have seen that....? Oh yeah, the constitution.

Your understanding of the Constitution stinks.

Separation of Church and State means the government doesn't have an official religion. Freedom of Religion ensures that people cannot be COMPELLED to do things that violate their faith.

Perfect example of this is standing for the pledge of allegiance: Which schools were forced to not compel students to do for First Amendment reasons in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Reciting the pledge of allegiance is a long tradition in U.S. schools. It’s also a long tradition for some students to stay silent or sit during the pledge, as a way of expressing their political or religious beliefs. Somewhat more recently, student athletes have held silent protests while the national anthem plays at high school and college football games. Teachers, coaches, and administrators regularly try to punish these students, but they have to answer to the First Amendment and the constitutional right to freedom of expression in public schools.

Silence and Sitting Count as Speech
As far back as 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring all public school students to recite the pledge of allegiance was a violation of their First Amendment rights, because free speech includes the right not to speak against your beliefs (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). And as the Court made clear more than 20 years later, public schools must also respect students right to express their opinions through actions (known as “symbolic speech”), as long as they aren’t being too disruptive. (Learn more about when schools may limit students' free speech rights.)

The Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed the issue of students refusing to stand for the pledge or the national anthem—clear examples of symbolic speech. But federal appellate courts have agreed that public schools may not force students to stand during the pledge. And just as public schools (including colleges and universities) shouldn’t punish students for exercising their First Amendment rights, they also shouldn’t withhold privileges—like participation in school sports or attending school games—for the same actions.

So again, there's precedent for letting students opt out of school experiences or curriculum that violate their faith. MCPS is on shaky ground, in my opinion.

They can't require them to write an essay celebrating gay people -- that would be the analogy. But they can require them to sit there and listen to the book (not requiring any speech), and can probably require them to write an essay on the book provided that they don't mandate the content (e.g., the kid could write how it's awful that Uncle Steve ir marrying his friend Doug, because it violates God's law and now they will both burn in hell --- I think the school could not fail them for expressing that opinion rather than celebrating how happy Steve and Doug will be).
The 1970s Supreme Court would tell these Plaintiffs to go pound sand. But in our new theocracy, ACB and her friends would probably side with the Plaintiffs. Unclear whether they'd get to 5 or not.

Look at the signature block. The Becket fund is pushing this, so I'd assume the goal is to get it to the Supreme Court

I'm sure. They got the appointments they wanted and now they will try to make hay while the sun shines, and try to eke out a few more years before Thomas goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

I'm going to the church of the spaghetti monster and stupidity greatly offends me. I think we should have it banned. Does anyone want to join me in the class action against stupidity?

1. Get your church recognized as a church

2. File a lawsuit and try your luck

1. That is a church

2. They are both very litigious and very successful in their litigation.

Then may the best church win.

HOw about we keep religion out of schools altogether? Instill those values at home if you wish, but I don't care what religious sensibilities the curriculum is offending.

That's nice. Your opinion doesn't decide. A judge, in a court of law, does.

Didn't they already decide to separate church and state a long time ago though? Where would I have seen that....? Oh yeah, the constitution.

Your understanding of the Constitution stinks.

Separation of Church and State means the government doesn't have an official religion. Freedom of Religion ensures that people cannot be COMPELLED to do things that violate their faith.

Perfect example of this is standing for the pledge of allegiance: Which schools were forced to not compel students to do for First Amendment reasons in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Reciting the pledge of allegiance is a long tradition in U.S. schools. It’s also a long tradition for some students to stay silent or sit during the pledge, as a way of expressing their political or religious beliefs. Somewhat more recently, student athletes have held silent protests while the national anthem plays at high school and college football games. Teachers, coaches, and administrators regularly try to punish these students, but they have to answer to the First Amendment and the constitutional right to freedom of expression in public schools.

Silence and Sitting Count as Speech
As far back as 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring all public school students to recite the pledge of allegiance was a violation of their First Amendment rights, because free speech includes the right not to speak against your beliefs (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). And as the Court made clear more than 20 years later, public schools must also respect students right to express their opinions through actions (known as “symbolic speech”), as long as they aren’t being too disruptive. (Learn more about when schools may limit students' free speech rights.)

The Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed the issue of students refusing to stand for the pledge or the national anthem—clear examples of symbolic speech. But federal appellate courts have agreed that public schools may not force students to stand during the pledge. And just as public schools (including colleges and universities) shouldn’t punish students for exercising their First Amendment rights, they also shouldn’t withhold privileges—like participation in school sports or attending school games—for the same actions.

So again, there's precedent for letting students opt out of school experiences or curriculum that violate their faith. MCPS is on shaky ground, in my opinion.

They can't require them to write an essay celebrating gay people -- that would be the analogy. But they can require them to sit there and listen to the book (not requiring any speech), and can probably require them to write an essay on the book provided that they don't mandate the content (e.g., the kid could write how it's awful that Uncle Steve ir marrying his friend Doug, because it violates God's law and now they will both burn in hell --- I think the school could not fail them for expressing that opinion rather than celebrating how happy Steve and Doug will be).
The 1970s Supreme Court would tell these Plaintiffs to go pound sand. But in our new theocracy, ACB and her friends would probably side with the Plaintiffs. Unclear whether they'd get to 5 or not.

The kids have to do assignments based on these LGBTQ books. That was the case for my 4th Grade daughter who had to read a Boy Named Penelope. She found the book, story and experience to be very confusing and didn't enjoy it.

Your daughter had to read a book in school that she found confusing and didn't enjoy, where will it all end!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

LGBTQ "sexual norms" like getting married. Or existing.

In any case, if you're saying that MCPS is excluding Muslim people by including LGBTQ people, that's just factually incorrect. How do I know this? Because there are Muslim people who are LGBTQ (or LGBTQ people who are Muslim, whichever way around you want to have it). "Pride Puppy!" is not an anti-Muslim book, or an anti-Christian book, or an anti-anybody book, except maybe anti- people who don't like rainbows or puppies.

MCPS is excluding Muslim people because they are forcing material on them that offends them, makes them uncomfortable, and violates their religious beliefs. It's really that simple so I don't know why you don't get it.

Read the lawsuit. I think the parents suing explain their stance quite well.

It doesn't violate their religious beliefs to hear that gay people exist (and that they get married or have parades). It may violate their religion for them to engage in same-sex sexual activities, or to fund such activities, or to marry a person of the same sex. But no one is requiring their kids to do that. It's not like they are being required to eat bacon at school, or required to kiss someone of the same sex, or required to do tequila shots, or anything else that might actually violate their religion. It's really that simple, so I don't know why you don't get it.

It's the equivalent of bacon and pork month being celebrated at school, with required readings about how good it is to eat pig meat. It's not incidental to the lesson, it is the lesson. Why should they not be allowed to opt out of this lesson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

LGBTQ "sexual norms" like getting married. Or existing.

In any case, if you're saying that MCPS is excluding Muslim people by including LGBTQ people, that's just factually incorrect. How do I know this? Because there are Muslim people who are LGBTQ (or LGBTQ people who are Muslim, whichever way around you want to have it). "Pride Puppy!" is not an anti-Muslim book, or an anti-Christian book, or an anti-anybody book, except maybe anti- people who don't like rainbows or puppies.

MCPS is excluding Muslim people because they are forcing material on them that offends them, makes them uncomfortable, and violates their religious beliefs. It's really that simple so I don't know why you don't get it.

Read the lawsuit. I think the parents suing explain their stance quite well.

It doesn't violate their religious beliefs to hear that gay people exist (and that they get married or have parades). It may violate their religion for them to engage in same-sex sexual activities, or to fund such activities, or to marry a person of the same sex. But no one is requiring their kids to do that. It's not like they are being required to eat bacon at school, or required to kiss someone of the same sex, or required to do tequila shots, or anything else that might actually violate their religion. It's really that simple, so I don't know why you don't get it.

The books don't just say, "Hey, gay people exist." They advocate and push for specific viewpoints on gender and sexuality in a one-sided way.

It would be fair if the book was about the SPECTRUM of sexuality and gender and included all viewpoints, but it doesn't.

The other side of the spectrum is the rest of the books about hetero cisgender people. Like the great majority.

[Anonymous]

I was not happy last summer about the book assigned by my child's middle school for summer reading (it's an Middle Years Programme school that has a theme book every year).

I was unhappy because they had assigned a poorly-written load of drivel. It happened to have an LGBTQ+ theme, which is why they had assigned it, to virtue signal that they're a welcoming and tolerant community (they also have NAACP meetings, and completely ignore their Asian population).

Personally, I couldn't care less what they say about LGBTQ+. I applaud their efforts to teach children to respect everyone's differences (except Asians, who seem to be invisible to them). But not if it comes at the cost of choosing something better written, with richer vocabulary, more complex sentence structure, more challenging character motivations and decisions - especially as the entire summer reading list is comprised of just one book!

I'm irritated that we're dumbing down education. And I'm sad to say that even without this recent LGBTQ+ virtue signaling craze, the chosen summer book would probably have been dumbed down for another cause du jour! There is no construct within MCPS where they would ever assign something actually high level and thought-provoking!

Of course, parenting begins at home and I've always given my kids my own reading list in the summer. I've tutored them, taught them cursive, filled in all the blanks that I've been able to fill that public school doesn't address.

But when the school has a golden opportunity to read great books, and just picks the newest and shiniest cause regardless of writing quality...

... it just rubs me the wrong way.

Getting off soapbox now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

LGBTQ "sexual norms" like getting married. Or existing.

In any case, if you're saying that MCPS is excluding Muslim people by including LGBTQ people, that's just factually incorrect. How do I know this? Because there are Muslim people who are LGBTQ (or LGBTQ people who are Muslim, whichever way around you want to have it). "Pride Puppy!" is not an anti-Muslim book, or an anti-Christian book, or an anti-anybody book, except maybe anti- people who don't like rainbows or puppies.

MCPS is excluding Muslim people because they are forcing material on them that offends them, makes them uncomfortable, and violates their religious beliefs. It's really that simple so I don't know why you don't get it.

Read the lawsuit. I think the parents suing explain their stance quite well.

It doesn't violate their religious beliefs to hear that gay people exist (and that they get married or have parades). It may violate their religion for them to engage in same-sex sexual activities, or to fund such activities, or to marry a person of the same sex. But no one is requiring their kids to do that. It's not like they are being required to eat bacon at school, or required to kiss someone of the same sex, or required to do tequila shots, or anything else that might actually violate their religion. It's really that simple, so I don't know why you don't get it.

The books don't just say, "Hey, gay people exist." They advocate and push for specific viewpoints on gender and sexuality in a one-sided way.

It would be fair if the book was about the SPECTRUM of sexuality and gender and included all viewpoints, but it doesn't.

Which book? Because Pride Puppy! actually is about the SPECTRUM of sexuality and gender. Should it include the viewpoint that being LGBTQ is bad? Maybe the author/illustrator should have added some protestors holding "You will burn in hell!" signs?

Again: Nothing about gender and sexuality is settled science. This is an ongoing debate in our society and there are varying people with varying viewpoints on the topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

I'm going to the church of the spaghetti monster and stupidity greatly offends me. I think we should have it banned. Does anyone want to join me in the class action against stupidity?

1. Get your church recognized as a church

2. File a lawsuit and try your luck

1. That is a church

2. They are both very litigious and very successful in their litigation.

Then may the best church win.

HOw about we keep religion out of schools altogether? Instill those values at home if you wish, but I don't care what religious sensibilities the curriculum is offending.

That's nice. Your opinion doesn't decide. A judge, in a court of law, does.

Didn't they already decide to separate church and state a long time ago though? Where would I have seen that....? Oh yeah, the constitution.

Your understanding of the Constitution stinks.

Separation of Church and State means the government doesn't have an official religion. Freedom of Religion ensures that people cannot be COMPELLED to do things that violate their faith.

Perfect example of this is standing for the pledge of allegiance: Which schools were forced to not compel students to do for First Amendment reasons in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Reciting the pledge of allegiance is a long tradition in U.S. schools. It’s also a long tradition for some students to stay silent or sit during the pledge, as a way of expressing their political or religious beliefs. Somewhat more recently, student athletes have held silent protests while the national anthem plays at high school and college football games. Teachers, coaches, and administrators regularly try to punish these students, but they have to answer to the First Amendment and the constitutional right to freedom of expression in public schools.

Silence and Sitting Count as Speech
As far back as 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring all public school students to recite the pledge of allegiance was a violation of their First Amendment rights, because free speech includes the right not to speak against your beliefs (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). And as the Court made clear more than 20 years later, public schools must also respect students right to express their opinions through actions (known as “symbolic speech”), as long as they aren’t being too disruptive. (Learn more about when schools may limit students' free speech rights.)

The Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed the issue of students refusing to stand for the pledge or the national anthem—clear examples of symbolic speech. But federal appellate courts have agreed that public schools may not force students to stand during the pledge. And just as public schools (including colleges and universities) shouldn’t punish students for exercising their First Amendment rights, they also shouldn’t withhold privileges—like participation in school sports or attending school games—for the same actions.

So again, there's precedent for letting students opt out of school experiences or curriculum that violate their faith. MCPS is on shaky ground, in my opinion.

They can't require them to write an essay celebrating gay people -- that would be the analogy. But they can require them to sit there and listen to the book (not requiring any speech), and can probably require them to write an essay on the book provided that they don't mandate the content (e.g., the kid could write how it's awful that Uncle Steve ir marrying his friend Doug, because it violates God's law and now they will both burn in hell --- I think the school could not fail them for expressing that opinion rather than celebrating how happy Steve and Doug will be).
The 1970s Supreme Court would tell these Plaintiffs to go pound sand. But in our new theocracy, ACB and her friends would probably side with the Plaintiffs. Unclear whether they'd get to 5 or not.

The kids have to do assignments based on these LGBTQ books. That was the case for my 4th Grade daughter who had to read a Boy Named Penelope. She found the book, story and experience to be very confusing and didn't enjoy it.

That's okay -- so long as they didn't force her to express a certain viewpoint on the book. I personally found The Iliad to be very confusing and I didn't enjoy it, so the essay I wrote about it criticized it as a fairly misogynistic piece of war PR without any real character depth or development. I'm sure everyone has a story about an assignment that they found confusing and not enjoyable. I'm not saying the book was good ---frankly, most of the books assigned aren't very good, so I'd be surprised if this was any different--but I object to parents wanting a trigger warning for any book that might feature people that they don't like.

[Anonymous]

I actually really love that OP's example is a 2 year-old using a computer to do a keyword search on "drag."

That just sums up how much exposure these folks have to MCPS, children, or reality.