This decision is one I actually agree with. While I have no objection to these books and I think that normalizing non-heterosexual relationships is good, the fact of the matter is that doing so violates the sincerely-held religious beliefs of some parents. Religious beliefs have special constitutional protections whether or not they’re viewed favorably by society. (Protection of only those beliefs viewed favorably is no protection at all.)
I find the school’s arguments that accommodating these parents is too impractical quite problematic, because if that were the case then schools would be required to refuse accommodations for every religious belief at least as difficult to accommodate as his one. I think some mainstream religious beliefs (dietary requirements, for example) could fall into that category.
While I have no objection to these books and I think that normalizing non-heterosexual relationships is good, the fact of the matter is that doing so violates the sincerely-held religious beliefs of some parents. Religious beliefs have special constitutional protections whether or not they’re viewed favorably by society. (Protection of only those beliefs viewed favorably is no protection at all.)
So what about the religious protection for everyone else who doesn’t fall into that group? You’re arguing that it should be eliminated? That Amendment specifically mentions freedom from religion as well so why aren’t you making the case for that here too? It sounds exactly like you’re arguing that the only people who should be offered protection are those who you view favorably.
I’m not sure what you mean - I’m advocating for more protection. My whole point is that everyone including people with unpopular or offensive beliefs should be protected, because it would be unconstitutional (and intolerant) to protect only those groups with inoffensive beliefs (e.g. dietary restrictions).
The “protection” you’re advocating for is for the government to wipe the existence off the map of an entire other group who are doing literally no harm to anyone and just want to exist.
Your claim that normalizing (e.g. acknowledging they exist) non-hetero relationships is “unconstitutional” and “intolerant” is complete horseshit and if this were 1860, you’d be making the same argument against black people being free from slavery because it offends the white “Christians” who “deserve protection” even though the actual tenets of their religion states otherwise, both then and now. What is unconstitutional is the government enshrining into law the imagined beliefs of a very specific religion at the expense of all others. I hope you do believe in Christianity because with that belief comes the knowledge that there is a special place in hell reserved for the likes of you.
I don’t think talking about a thing that goes against any individual religion should be considered protecting religion. If my religion teaches vegetarianism, can I opt out of any books where a character eats meat or hunts? Can I be exempt from learning about early humans or the food chain because it involves learning about their diet? The answer is now yes, and I think it does a huge disservice to children. Reading a book about a gay couple is not forcing you to be gay or even support homosexual relationships. It’s just showing you that gay people exist and that’s legal and some gay people have families and are happy. You can think it’s morally wrong, but it’s happening and it’s the schools job to educate children on things that are happening. I know people who were removed when evolution was discussed. They’re no longer religious, but they have this gap in understanding they now have to fill in because their parents didn’t want them to know the science. I think that’s terrible and does not help, but I support that more than the book thing because at least you can argue testing a child about evolution forces them to say things they don’t believe in whereas just reading or hearing about gay people doesn’t make you do anything.
I see where you’re coming from, and I also disapprove of beliefs and ideologies which demand ignorance. However, there’s no impartial principle which can determine who is ignorant and who isn’t - I have, for example, been called ignorant because I refuse to read the books that vaccine conspiracy theorists suggest to me. If their views became mainstream (and if I had children) I would want the option of withdrawing my children from a class teaching those views, even if technically the class would not be forcing them to believe that vaccines are harmful.
Ultimately I don’t want to wield any power against my ideological enemies which they would then be one election away from wielding against me.
Your faith has zero protection from being exposed to opposing ideas. That is fallacious. Have your faith, obey the law and allow me to live my life too. THAT is what the US Constitution allows.
Your god is a moron and it is my right to say that.
This decision is one I actually agree with. While I have no objection to these books and I think that normalizing non-heterosexual relationships is good, the fact of the matter is that doing so violates the sincerely-held religious beliefs of some parents. Religious beliefs have special constitutional protections whether or not they’re viewed favorably by society. (Protection of only those beliefs viewed favorably is no protection at all.)
I find the school’s arguments that accommodating these parents is too impractical quite problematic, because if that were the case then schools would be required to refuse accommodations for every religious belief at least as difficult to accommodate as his one. I think some mainstream religious beliefs (dietary requirements, for example) could fall into that category.
So what about the religious protection for everyone else who doesn’t fall into that group? You’re arguing that it should be eliminated? That Amendment specifically mentions freedom from religion as well so why aren’t you making the case for that here too? It sounds exactly like you’re arguing that the only people who should be offered protection are those who you view favorably.
I’m not sure what you mean - I’m advocating for more protection. My whole point is that everyone including people with unpopular or offensive beliefs should be protected, because it would be unconstitutional (and intolerant) to protect only those groups with inoffensive beliefs (e.g. dietary restrictions).
The “protection” you’re advocating for is for the government to wipe the existence off the map of an entire other group who are doing literally no harm to anyone and just want to exist.
Your claim that normalizing (e.g. acknowledging they exist) non-hetero relationships is “unconstitutional” and “intolerant” is complete horseshit and if this were 1860, you’d be making the same argument against black people being free from slavery because it offends the white “Christians” who “deserve protection” even though the actual tenets of their religion states otherwise, both then and now. What is unconstitutional is the government enshrining into law the imagined beliefs of a very specific religion at the expense of all others. I hope you do believe in Christianity because with that belief comes the knowledge that there is a special place in hell reserved for the likes of you.
Letting some students leave a class during storytime if their parents request that will, uh, wipe the existence off the map of an entire other group?
I don’t think talking about a thing that goes against any individual religion should be considered protecting religion. If my religion teaches vegetarianism, can I opt out of any books where a character eats meat or hunts? Can I be exempt from learning about early humans or the food chain because it involves learning about their diet? The answer is now yes, and I think it does a huge disservice to children. Reading a book about a gay couple is not forcing you to be gay or even support homosexual relationships. It’s just showing you that gay people exist and that’s legal and some gay people have families and are happy. You can think it’s morally wrong, but it’s happening and it’s the schools job to educate children on things that are happening. I know people who were removed when evolution was discussed. They’re no longer religious, but they have this gap in understanding they now have to fill in because their parents didn’t want them to know the science. I think that’s terrible and does not help, but I support that more than the book thing because at least you can argue testing a child about evolution forces them to say things they don’t believe in whereas just reading or hearing about gay people doesn’t make you do anything.
I see where you’re coming from, and I also disapprove of beliefs and ideologies which demand ignorance. However, there’s no impartial principle which can determine who is ignorant and who isn’t - I have, for example, been called ignorant because I refuse to read the books that vaccine conspiracy theorists suggest to me. If their views became mainstream (and if I had children) I would want the option of withdrawing my children from a class teaching those views, even if technically the class would not be forcing them to believe that vaccines are harmful.
Ultimately I don’t want to wield any power against my ideological enemies which they would then be one election away from wielding against me.
Your faith has zero protection from being exposed to opposing ideas. That is fallacious. Have your faith, obey the law and allow me to live my life too. THAT is what the US Constitution allows.
Your god is a moron and it is my right to say that.