Religious Freedom Inconvenient for Public Schools
Would you believe that here in the United States, someone would suggest that religious freedom and parental right undermine the public school system? It’s happened. A US District Judge has used that as part of his reasoning in a recent ruling.
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the “gay” agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be “engaged and productive citizens.”
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said “the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…”
This started in 2005 when David Parker objected to the fact that he couldn’t get his kindergarten child opted out of, or even notified of, same-sex household issues when they were brought up. The judge’s ruling gives them three options; private school, home school, or vote in enough School Committee members to get things changed. Fair enough, but can you imagine a court telling a black man that if he doesn’t like being forced into blacks-only restrooms and schools that these are his only choices? It would be unthinkable, but religious freedom, written quite plainly into the Constitution, is being afforded less protection than civil rights laws.
We are losing our constitutional rights at the hands of the judicial branch of government, and few notice, care, or even agree that it’s being eroded. The folks with the latter view are the most blind.
Technorati Tags: education, homeschool, Judge Mark Wolf, David Parker, Massachusetts, Christianity, homosexual
Filed under: Christianity • Culture • Education • Homeschooling • Homosexuality • Politics • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
3/22/07
Dear Doug Payton:
I read with great interest your blog “Religious Freedom Inconvenient for Public Schools” and vigorously concur with your criticism of the liberal judges (federal and state) who have issued these rulings.
Brian Camenker and his MassResistance movement (www.massresistance.org) in Waltham, MA has been taking the battle to the Mass. Legislature
on the Gay Marriage and Homosexual Agenda in the Mass. public school system for years.
Sadly, a very paltry number of citizens respond to the call to defeat the homosexual
lobby juggernaut in their State House. I have encountered the same opposition at my Andover, MA private school where I graduated in 1948 (then finished at Yale in 1952).
In California we face the same powerful homosexual lobby in the Democrat-controlled State Legislature with the same obsessed goals of homosexual educational indoctrination.But contrary to your article’s title, this is not about “Religious Freedom”. The insideous strategy of the Gay lobby is to stress bogus Constitutional Rights and Safety and Fairness doctrines. These are easy target goals for homosexual advocates to promote to young, unsuspecting teenagers (and even Kindergarten age children).
Pro-family value, traditional marriage citizens must stand up in the public square and counter attack the above “enemies” with relentless public protest and logical argument. Only then, will we prevail, as we did in California last year with Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto of homosexual indoctrination bills. Only problem: the homosexuals keep coming back like a creeping fungus.
Press on with your blogging exposures — the more citizens learn the truth about the Gay Agenda the better.
Sincerely,
H. Terry Buchanan
Glendale, CA
Thank you for your work in this.
Yes, while imagined constitutional rights are the means by which this agenda is spread, what I’m pointing out is that there is another right, just as constitutional, being removed. I’m hoping that pointing this out will wake folks up.
American Judges have “evolved” over the last several decades. They no longer base their decisions on the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, national laws. Many decisions are based on their own “feelings” (opinions) about social issues. Their substantiation offer depends upon laws of other nations, and the goals desired (whether or not those goals are legally obligatory).
There are violent revolutions and peaceful revolutions. I believe the United States is in the pit of a pre-revolutionary phase. Like frogs in warm water, Americans accept continuously increasing taxes and continuously decreasing freedoms. Eventually the frog will utterly, irredeemably die if it does not do something to change its situation.
Which is why the term “strict Constitutionalist” is not a denigrating term for a judge; it’s a job requirement.