4 reactions
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court’s Republican majority ruled that public schools must now inform parents before their children are taught a lesson those parents might object to on religious grounds, and that those parents must be given an opportunity to opt their child out of that lesson.
This is from Vox and they do a much better job explaining it than I would.
*Mahmoud* arose out of a dispute over queer-themed books — Montgomery County, Maryland, approved several books with LGBTQ characters that could be used in classroom instruction. But the **First Amendment prohibits discrimination among people with different religious beliefs**. So, if parents with anti-LGBTQ religious views have a right to notification and an opt-out, so too does every parent who might object to any lesson on any religious ground.
This rule, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor warns in a dissenting opinion, is likely to cause “chaos for this Nation’s public schools.” Requiring every public school teacher to anticipate which lessons might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs “will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,” especially in a nation as diverse as the United States.
In the past, courts have rejected **similar lawsuits brought by parents who object to books** or lessons that feature magic, women who have achievements outside the home, and include topics as diverse as divorce, interfaith couples, “immodest dress,” and “false views of death.” After *Mahmoud*, however, all of these parents now have a right to advance notice.
Schools that fail to predict that a lesson about a Jewish woman with a career, a Hindu husband, or an immodest wardrobe will offend a parent’s religious belief will now face very serious financial consequences. Federal law often lets the “prevailing party” in a suit about constitutional rights **collect attorney’s fees from the losing party**. So lawyers can hunt for parents with idiosyncratic religious views, file a lawsuit against a school, and demand payment to avoid litigation that will be even more expensive for the school district.
#religion
This is from Vox and they do a much better job explaining it than I would.
*Mahmoud* arose out of a dispute over queer-themed books — Montgomery County, Maryland, approved several books with LGBTQ characters that could be used in classroom instruction. But the **First Amendment prohibits discrimination among people with different religious beliefs**. So, if parents with anti-LGBTQ religious views have a right to notification and an opt-out, so too does every parent who might object to any lesson on any religious ground.
This rule, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor warns in a dissenting opinion, is likely to cause “chaos for this Nation’s public schools.” Requiring every public school teacher to anticipate which lessons might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs “will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,” especially in a nation as diverse as the United States.
In the past, courts have rejected **similar lawsuits brought by parents who object to books** or lessons that feature magic, women who have achievements outside the home, and include topics as diverse as divorce, interfaith couples, “immodest dress,” and “false views of death.” After *Mahmoud*, however, all of these parents now have a right to advance notice.
Schools that fail to predict that a lesson about a Jewish woman with a career, a Hindu husband, or an immodest wardrobe will offend a parent’s religious belief will now face very serious financial consequences. Federal law often lets the “prevailing party” in a suit about constitutional rights **collect attorney’s fees from the losing party**. So lawyers can hunt for parents with idiosyncratic religious views, file a lawsuit against a school, and demand payment to avoid litigation that will be even more expensive for the school district.
#religion
3
1
| 10,000 mlx | |
| 13 | |
| 4 |