Evangelicals are driving a nightmarish legal battle that seems destined to end up in the Supreme Court--and, if it does, it may very well prove to be the ultimate showdown between church and state, and democracy and theocracy. The issue is surely one that Jefferson, Madison and Franklin never envisioned.
Do parents have the right to enforce anti-social behavior and bigotry in public schools in the name of first amendment rights, specifically freedom of speech and the very murky waters of religious freedom? Among other things, the First Amendment was designed to prevent any one religion from imposing its views on the nation and its laws. Evangelicals are waging a war to destroy that very basic and critical cornerstone of democracy and human rights.
This nasty case began in the spring of 2005 when Ma and Pa Parker's then 5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by same sex partners.
The Parkers filed suit against the Lexington, Massachusetts school district in 2006 and later were joined by Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, whose second-grader's class was read a story about two princes who become lovers. The intent of the law suit is to stop public schools from "advocating sin and abomination" in classrooms.
One by one, the courts have been dismissing this lawsuit, most recently just a few days ago by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
There are a number of interesting questions to be decided in this situation. Do parents have the right in the name of freedom of religion to deny their children the right to an education that enables them to function as responsible and productive citizens in a democratic society? Does religion have the right to censor reality in accordance with ancient superstitions and "Jesus-justified" ignorance? And, perhaps of most importance, can religion be used to advance bigotry and discrimination against American minority groups?
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a judge's decision last year that a school can expose children to contrary ideas without violating their parents' rights to exercise religious beliefs.
"Public schools," wrote Judge Sandra L. Lynch, "are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them."
Lynch reasoned that schools must accept the Massachusetts high court's groundbreaking 2003 decision ruling that the state constitution mandates the recognition of same-sex marriage.
One of the more subtle issues at the core of this controversy is that educators and most Americans define education as the process by which sentient beings expand their knowledge with facts and insights, enabling them to grow as thinking creatures.
Evangelicals, on the other hand, define education as propaganda and brainwashing, a process of indoctrination.
A Christian reporter's spin on the 2006 chapter in this ongoing story sheds some light on this very different understanding of the purpose of education in a democratic nation. He wrote: "U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker of Lexington, concluding there is an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality."
The Parkers' lead attorney, Jeffrey Denner, declared after this past week's ruling the parents are preparing to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We are fully committed to go forward," he said, according to the non-profit advocacy group MassResistance. "We will continue to fight on all the fronts that we need to."
David Parker said the ruling "will surely embolden and enable the schools even more on this if it's not fought."
"There's going to be an accountability, you can count on it," he said.
MassResistance, which has supported the Parkers, contended Lynch's opinion virtually ignores a major argument made by the Parkers' attorney, Rob Sinsheimer, "that the basic constitutional protections of religious belief are being trampled on by the school."
MassResistance notes Lynch uses the state's "controversial 1999 Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework to justify homosexual-oriented "tolerance" lessons in the lower grades, but she "completely ignores the fact that that document was clearly intended as a non-mandatory, informal set of guidelines."
The group points out Planned Parenthood is promoting a bill this year to make the document a formal legal guideline.
MassResistance said that to read the concluding words of Lynch's ruling "is to experience a real sense of the term banality of evil.'"
Lynch reasoned that "the mere fact that a child is exposed on occasion in public school to a concept offensive to a parent's religious belief does not inhibit the parent from instructing the child differently."
No, little Bobby, your teacher lied. The world is flat and your great great great grandfather used to have a pet Brontosaurus-- but the upkeep was too expensive so he ate it.
The opinion said the judges cannot see how the Parker's son's "free exercise right was burdened at all: two books were made available to him, but he was never required to read them or have them read to him. Further, these books do not endorse gay marriage or homosexuality, or even address these topics explicitly, but merely describe how other children might come from families that look different from one's own. There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations."
The panel said the Wirthlin's son "has a more significant claim, both because he was required to sit through a classroom reading of 'King and King' and because that book affirmatively endorses homosexuality and gay marriage. It is a fair inference that the reading of 'King and King' was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage. That was the point of why that book was chosen and used."
But the judges also dismissed the Wirthlin's argument.
"Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end," the opinion said. "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights."
Religion has been in the nasty business of suppressing knowledge and fact for thousands of years. In fact, censorship and ignorance are powerful cornerstones for most organized religions. I believe our founding fathers understood that and designed laws to prevent it from plaguing this nation. This most recent perversion of First Amendment rights is not designed to attack gay Americans, it is intended to destroy our democracy. It is an attack on all Americans who treasure and respect the Bill of Rights. And when this abomination of a legal battle makes its way into the chambers of the Supreme Court, the Justices, even as conservative as they are, will hopefully laugh these ignorant enemies of 1776 right out of Washington.
Comments