• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court backs parents seeking to opt their kids out of LGBTQ books in elementary schools

13eastxpharoh said:
I don't know much about Christians or religious values honestly. But Parents should be able to bring their kids up how they want as long as it doesn't intervene with another parents to do the same.
Click to expand...
As they already have the right to do.
 
Carjosse said:
One side wants to promote acceptance of LGBTQ people and the other wants the right to shame and ignore them.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. One side wants to use the government to impose and mandate moral approval of the alphabet soup and the other wants to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of religion. That the indoctrination is no longer compulsory is the middle ground.
 
VySky said:
A win for parents. They have rights.

—————



www.nbcnews.com

Supreme Court backs parents seeking to opt their kids out of LGBTQ books in elementary schools

Parents sued Montgomery County, Maryland, schools after it said they couldn't opt their children out of exposure to LGBTQ books in the classroom.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
Of course they do. They have the right to be a part of curriculum selection before it hits the classroom. But that involves effort.

This is not parental rights, this is parental abdication.
 
Napoleon said:
Incorrect. One side wants to use the government to impose and mandate moral approval of the alphabet soup and the other wants to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of religion. That the indoctrination is no longer compulsory is the middle ground.
Click to expand...
Freedom of religion does not mean forcing your religious beliefs down everyone's throat.
 
Gave states remit to block porn, turned citizenship into a regional privilege, and this rubbish.

Fascist theocracy for wypepo it is.
 
Bodecea said:
Freedom of religion does not mean forcing your religious beliefs down everyone's throat.
Click to expand...
How is a child not being present for government indoctrination “forcing your religious belief’s down everyone’s throat?” You must be confused. You don’t have the right to use the government as a cudgel to impose your moral philosophy on children in a compulsory setting. And if you have to do that, you don’t have a persuasive argument.
 
Napoleon said:
Incorrect. One side wants to use the government to impose and mandate moral approval of the alphabet soup and the other wants to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of religion. That the indoctrination is no longer compulsory is the middle ground.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that a parent should be able to remove their child from a class if there is a book featuring characters of different races interacting?
 
Napoleon said:
Incorrect. One side wants to use the government to impose and mandate moral approval of the alphabet soup and the other wants to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of religion. That the indoctrination is no longer compulsory is the middle ground.
Click to expand...

You realize that objection to this "indoctrination" is coming from folks who want to post the 10 Commandments in classrooms.
 
madman said:
If we allow all parents to decide what is best for their kids, then i guess we can get rid of child protective services.
Click to expand...
Child protective services does nothing to help children.
madman said:
After all, if I feel that I need to beat my child (physically) into submission, then the gov should NOt have a say. Is this what you are aiming for?
Click to expand...
No, but most parents aren't screwed in the head like you believe it or not and they want what's best for their children. Children are not tools or absolute property of their parents like you clearly believe. We should treat children as they are. The potentially responsible individuals whose freedom and opportunities most be protected. That is all I'm saying. You discuss children like they are not even humans.
 
Carjosse said:
Do you believe that a parent should be able to remove their child from a class if there is a book featuring characters of different races interacting?
Click to expand...
The characters aren’t the issue in this case. The issue is whether or not the government can impose and mandate a moral philosophy with religious implication on children in a compulsory setting. And the answer is NO.
 
Really backward and supremely stupid ruling.
But whatever, I let my child read whatever she wants to read.
She reads for pleasure and I would never want to stifle that or her creative tendencies.
So while I find this to be just the height of hubris by the court. It isn't going to affect my family.
But, at least we are swirling the drain faster now.
 
13eastxpharoh said:
Child protective services does nothing to help children.

No, but most parents aren't screwed in the head like you believe it or not and they want what's best for their children. Children are not tools or absolute property of their parents like you clearly believe. We should treat children as they are. The potentially responsible individuals whose freedom and opportunities most be protected. That is all I'm saying. You discuss children like they are not even humans.
Click to expand...
Mind numbingly stupid pretense.
 
Napoleon said:
How is a child not being present for government indoctrination “forcing your religious belief’s down everyone’s throat?” You must be confused. You don’t have the right to use the government as a cudgel to impose your moral philosophy on children in a compulsory setting. And if you have to do that, you don’t have a persuasive argument.
Click to expand...
Seems like the problem here is the argument is too persuasive. It’s the religious parents who apparently don’t have a persuasive enough counter—they want to keep kids from hearing the pro-LGBT argument altogether.
 
Carjosse said:
That is exactly what this is about. How is objecting to having books with LGBTQ characters different than a book with characters of different races?
Click to expand...
The issue is whether or not the government can impose and mandate a moral philosophy with religious implications on children in a compulsory setting. And the answer is NO.
 
Cameron said:
Seems like the problem here is the argument is too persuasive. It’s the religious parents who apparently don’t have a persuasive enough counter—they want to keep kids from hearing the pro-LGBT argument altogether.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights is not persuasive to you?
 
Napoleon said:
The characters aren’t the issue in this case. The issue is whether or not the government can impose and mandate a moral philosophy with religious implication on children in a compulsory setting. And the answer is NO.
Click to expand...

Racism has had quite a bit of religious support.
 
Napoleon said:
The Bill of Rights is not persuasive to you?
Click to expand...
The free exercise of religion extends to control over the public space, including limiting the speech of non-Christians, does it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom