The United States Supreme Court has failed this Friday in favor of a group of parents who were looking to withdraw Tales books with LGTBIQ+ themes of their children’s school. According to the American newspaper Maryland’s state magistrates have ruled that teachers cannot demand that young people participate in “Lessons with books that conflict with the religious beliefs of their parents.”
This sentence could have implications in public schools throughout the country. In fact, I could give parents the “right to express religious objections” In a wide range of learning materials, even in reproductive health classes. In recent years, the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court, “has been very receptive to religious rights demands.”
According to the information disseminated by the American newspaper, the Montgomery County School System (Maryland) extended its English language and literature readings in 2022, with the aim of including books with characters LGTBIQ+ “as part of the effort to better reflect the diversity of families.” In this way, “Primary books included stories about a girl who discovers the marriage of her favorite uncle. Another tells the story of a young woman who is in love with her classmate,” says the publication.
Since then, one Coalition of parents of various religious origins (Muslims, orthodox and Catholics), protested against the curriculum and filed a lawsuit. They alleged that “they just wanted to have the option to decide if their children participated in this option that the school system offered.”
For its part, the Trump administration supported the parents, claiming, according to the Washington Postthat the county was “forcing families to choose between violating their religious beliefs or giving up the benefit of public education.” However, the defense claimed that “Story books do not constitute sexual education material.”
Finally, this Friday, andThe American Supreme has put himself next to the “religious parents” and has defended “his right to choose alternatives in public school.” Although they claim that “the mere exposure in a public school environment to ideas or information that contradicts the religious beliefs of a person does not constitute an unconstitutional burden on religious rights.”
