Should Schools Adjust Curriculum for Religious Beliefs?

Should parents be allowed to remove their children from school on days when LGBTQ+ inclusive books are used in class? In this video, we break down a recent Supreme Court ruling, the arguments on both sides, and how the Constitution balances freedom of religion with inclusive education. Supporters say it's about protecting parental rights — critics argue it's a step toward censorship and exclusion. So, who gets to decide what’s taught in our schools? You decide.

Subscribe to stay connected to our stories

Support us by becoming a member on YouTube

Or Support us on Patreon

Buy Ring of Fire merch

Find us on social media!

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Hi, I'm Brenton Goodman and this is You. Decide. Today we will discuss whether parents should be able to shield their kids from LGBTQ plus inclusive lessons in schools. Recently the Supreme Court decided a case known as Mahmud v Taylor. The case involved a decision by Montgomery County, Maryland to create a curriculum more representative of the students and families living there. To do that, the county chose five lgbtq plus inclusive books to add to the lessons for children ages five to 11. The teachers put the books on the bookshelves, offered the books for use in reading circles and included them in classroom discussions. The county believes that these books, along with the non lgbtq plus books create lessons that teach students there is not a normal or right way to be oneself. The county sought to assure parents that none of the books would be used to instruct on gender or sexual identity.

Although the county originally let parents withdraw their kids on days, these lessons were taught. It stopped because notifying all the parents was too difficult. Having the children miss lessons was harmful to the class, and the absence of some students during the lessons could make the children of LGBTQ plus families feel vilified. Now, the parents who wanted their children excused from the lessons claimed religious exemption because they believe mankind is created by God as just males and females. That sexuality should only be expressed between married men and women. And they believe teaching the biological sex is different than gender is a refusal to accept the gifts God gave us. Now, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the parents who had religious issues with the county's lessons. Now, generally, public schools are allowed to place what we call incidental burdens on religious exercise as long as the government's rules are neutral and can apply to everyone, the idea is that in a political society, laws must apply to everyone for the greater good.

For instance, a person can't avoid paying taxes that help fund war related activity just because they believe war is a sin. This is because such exceptions would severely limit the government's ability to keep us safe. However, in this case, the court reasoned parents have a constitutionally granted right to raise their children with their religious values and that the county's failure to let parents remove the children from the lessons on the particular days with substantial interference with the rights of those parents. Now, supporters of this view say the right to direct a child's religious upbringing extends outside of one's home. And since not everyone can afford private religious schools, the right must apply in public schools as well. And since these books are presented to young and impressionable children, exposure to

LGBTQ plus beliefs and values would undermine the teachings the parents want their children to learn. They say forcing lessons on children that indicate the LGBTQ plus lifestyle to be normal and acceptable is a type of coercion and indoctrination that goes way beyond just allowing for a space where lgbtq plus families can be present and safe. They also say the lessons can still be taught. This ruling just says some parents can opt their children out of the lessons like the county allows for other educational areas. They say this is simply just protecting their freedom to exercise their religious beliefs and not inhibiting other children. Now, opponents say that public schools are meant to expose children of all faiths and backgrounds to different beliefs and ideas to prepare them to participate in a multicultural society. They point out that the curriculum doesn't teach that lgbtq plus lifestyles and families are necessarily proper, but that they do exist and that their loved ones may celebrate marriage and other types of life events.