The Left Goes Nuts as the Supreme Court Seems to Signal That Their Monopoly on Propagandizing Kids Is at an End – Opinion

The last few weeks have been crucial for the country at the US Supreme Court. Last week, Supreme Court heard the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Mississippi law in question is an direct challenge to pro-abortion Roe’s legal system. In that argument, it appeared there were five solid and six probable votes to strike down both Roe and Casey (read Justice Thomas Tears Into Pro-Abortion Lawyers With Hard Opening Questions for more color commentary). This week, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge to Texas’s heartbeat law; see Supreme Court Humiliates Biden, Refuses to Stop Texas Heartbeat Law, and Gorsuch and the Wise Latina Have a Public Spat. It appears that abortion might no longer be considered a federal matter.

Perhaps just as critical to the nation’s future was Carson v. Makin. This case asked whether or not a state has the right to subsidise private school tuition, but specifically forbade religious schools from taking part in this program. You can read my take at this post: Supreme Court Seems Ready to Nuke Maine’s Law Discriminating Against Religious Schools.

While there was general wailing about the bum’s rush given the noble and Holy status of abortion, some of the most hyperbolic rhetoric was directed at the Maine school-choice case. Vox.com’s Ian Milhiser, who is always funny, views school choice this way. Headline: It seems that the Supreme Court is eager to make taxpayers pay for religious education. Subhead: Carson v. Makin is likely to result in another win for the religious rights.

All six of the Court’s Republican appointees appeared to think that this exclusion for religious schools is unconstitutional — meaning that Maine would be required to pay for tuition at pervasively religious schools. This could also include hateful worldview schools. One of the plaintiff families was, according to the state. Carson wants the state to pay for a school that requires teachers to sign a contract stating that “the Bible says that ‘God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted’” and that “[s]uch deviation from Scriptural standards is grounds for termination.’”

In the likely event that these plaintiffs’ families prevail, that will mark a significant escalation in the Court’s decisions benefiting the religious right — even if the Court limits the decision narrowly to Maine’s situation. Shortly after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation gave Republicans a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court, the Court handed down a revolutionary decision holding that people of faith may seek broad exemptions from the laws that apply to anyone else. The Court is more reluctant than ever to ask the government tax its citizens to spend the money on religion.
This reluctance could be over.

At Slate, noted legal eagle and martial arts expert (he’s broken several bones in his years of study, donchaknow?) Mark Joseph Stern cries Armageddon-like a rabid gerbil was crawling around…well, we won’t go there. The headline there is The Supreme Court’s New Religious Liberty Case Could Destroy Public Education with an over-the-top subhead that reads A supermajority of conservatives could force the funding of Christian schools to indoctrinate their students with hatred by forcing states to do so..

It is practically impossible for Christian schools to teach hate among students. If a school teaches “hate,” it is, by definition, not Christian. This is a completely different job.

After a year of nationwide panic over what’s taught in publicly funded schools, the Supreme Court’s upcoming argument in Carson v. Makin It deserves to be given more attention. The questions posed in the case have major ramifications for the engineered hysteria over critical race theory, as well as the general dismay many Americans feel over the kind of education they’re subsidizing with their tax dollars. Carson v. Makin asks whether the First Amendment compels individuals of every faith to help finance the indoctrination of children by conservative Christians to discriminate against LGBTQ people, women, religious minorities, and liberal Christians. This is a pedagogy that’s so extremist, divisive and fanatical it renders critical race theory obsolete Blue’s Clues. The Supreme Court almost certain will force taxpayers into subsidizing these dangerous teachings regardless of how serious they are in violation of their religious and moral beliefs.

…

American democracy rests on the foundation of public education. A bad decision in Espinoza would shake the foundation of the nation’s education system, spurning the notion that state-funded schools should teach students how to engage in diverse and pluralistic self-governance. Maine would give a huge financial boost to Christian schools, which are prejudice academies that teach students how to hate others. They reject equality in favor of intolerance, preaching a fundamentalist ideology that’s incompatible with multicultural democracy.

…

And let’s be clear: The overwhelming majority of institutions that will benefit from these decisions are Christian. Although the plaintiffs here appeal to gauzy abstractions about religious pluralism, it’s almost always Christian parents and Christian schools seeking public money. Because most Americans are Christians, the majority of parochial schools are Christian. Carson This is not about religious pluralism. It’s about empowering the majority religion to use the machinery of the state to establish its supremacy at the literal expense of nonbelievers.

The heart of Carson lies a rejection of public education as we know it—an insistence that the government engages in noxious discrimination when it demands secular instruction in publicly funded schools. This idea, taken to its extreme, would obligate states to spend as much money on religious schools as it does on public schools, essentially destroying the public school system. The SCOTUS may not make this move in CarsonIt will not, however, transfer millions to Christian schools which will make use of it to instill hatred against minority groups. It will normalize bigoted views and undermine the principle that public education in America should be free from bias.

If the left side becomes incontinence-like, it is a sign that you have reached a high pressure point.

Here are some quick answers to Stern’s points.

1. CRT is nothing other than a racist system that underpins a equally racist spoils program. There is no need to be hysterical about CRT’s opponents.
2. The Maine case does not indoctrinate children. Its purpose is, in fact, to stop such indoctrination.
3. Your children’s culture and values should be the top priority. No one else has any right or business to do that, nor can you.
4. Christians don’t object to people; they object to behavior. It is important to distinguish between the two. I don’t object to alcoholics in the workplace; I have a right to keep drunken people out of the workplace.
5. A “Christian” school should be free to limit enrollment to children of their faith. It isn’t outrageous. It is not possible to find a school in Maine that offers only a Christian education. This claim has never been made in court briefs.
6. It does not necessarily mean the education is delivered in state-funded schools or that there is any control over what is being taught.
7. How to function in a “diverse and pluralistic society” is a matter for parents to decide, no one else.
8. I don’t know how school choice helps Christians establish “supremacy,” but if it does, sign me up right now.
9. A state-funded school system is not presumed to have monopoly over education because of its cultural and legal foundation. On the other side, the legal and cultural basis allow the government to ensure that a child receives a public education.
10. Education money exists to help educate children. Period. It is wasteful and inefficient to fund a bureaucracy that consists of multiple levels of administrators.
11. It was established without an education bureaucracy, and has existed throughout its history with one. The chances are that it will continue to function without the existing system.

Stern presents the issue in an incredibly dishonest manner, even though he is being imprecise. This is about the question of who decides what children learn in terms of values. Are you a parent required to make payments to help your child attend a school system that indoctrinates children about issues such as race, gender, or governance?

.@fairfaxcounty library puts “Gender Queer” and “Lawn Boy” – books parents have protested for pedophilia and explicit content – next to the Bible in “holiday book display.”
“The tolerant Left is giving you guys some holiday hate,” @StacyLangton saidhttps://t.co/OU2xYAnrrY

— Tyler O’Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 8, 2021

Oder can you choose to opt-out

Along the way, Stern confuses the concept of “public education” with a system of state-funded schools. They are different. The Supreme Court decided that a parent could send their child to any school funded by the state if they so desired. Stern would eliminate this choice. He endorses Terry McAuliffe’s position in Virginia’s gubernatorial race.

Terry McAuliffe: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” pic.twitter.com/rs6pSWZw79

— Corey A. DeAngelis (@DeAngelisCorey) October 27, 2021

This was the position that won him his vote at the polls.

Both Milhisier at Vox and Stern at Slate fixate on the fact that traditional Christian sexual ethics would stop the propagation of the LGBTQIA+∞ “community.” This is understandable as public school systems in many places actively mainstream LGBTQIA+∞ propaganda. For example, in California, some teachers attended a workshop on recruiting kids to a “Gay Straight Alliance” club and concealing the child’s activity from parents.

It is true that Christian schools may refuse to accept people who live lifestyles not in line with the Bible. This right has been confirmed by the Supreme Court Hosanna Tabor, and there is nothing in Maine’s “anti-discrimination” law that can prevent that. On the other hand it’s hard to imagine any reason why a Christian who is not a believer in Christian sexual ethics should be able to work as a teacher at a Christian school.

This case that the left’s reaction is actually a good analog to what has happened in social media. It has determined which opinions can be allowed on social media, and has controlled it with ruthless dominance. It dawned on them, however, that the conservatives were creating alternative institutions. They went mad (Lefties Freak Out on Conservatives for Doing exactly What They Teach Them To Do). The left controls the public education system in the same manner. I believe it’s fair to say that the majority of educators and administrators are leftists, more concerned with shaping their students’ worldviews than actually educating them. There is growing opposition to CRT schools, and there is increasing demand that money be used to support children’s education and not the school system. This threatens the power of the left to indoctrinate and propagandize children. They don’t like this one bit.

The good news, of course, is that they don’t have to like it because it is going to happen without their permission.