Recent Articles | About Authors | About the Syndicate | Archives

To receive a plain text copy of this article by email, see info at the bottom of this page.

Real Answers™
wec60
Copyright: ©2008 William Cripe Sr.
550 words

COURTS UPHOLD ANOTHER CASE OF PUBLIC INDOCTRINATION

By: William Cripe Sr.

Need another reason to pull your children out of the institutions of indoctrination formerly called public education?

Parents in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts protested the addition of two books, King and King and Who's In a Family, to the curriculum of Lexington's youngest students--Kindergarten-3rd grade.  The books serve no other purpose than to infuse impressionable little minds with the homosexual agenda at the earliest stages of development.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the parents--now there's a surprise...  This court, motivated by anti-religious bigotry rather than any cogent jurisprudence, created law as they went along--another surprise.  

Judge Sandra L. Lynch wrote the opinion saying, [schools] "are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them."

Lynch's ruling begs the question; where does this expert panel of lawyers derive their authority in determining that all the hot button issues of our day are offensive only to religious people?  

Plenty of people oppose abortion who never darken the door of a church.  Homosexuality is offensive to many people who don't have a shred of religious conviction, but who still have a measure of common sense.  And many women, who wouldn't know Genesis from Revelation, are against the lustful exploitation of children through the dissemination of birth control without parental permission.

There are all kinds of "moral" issues which are moral precisely because of their destructive nature and sociological repercussions apart from any informing theology. 

So it is obvious the court's ruling derives from an erroneous assumption that such offense is necessarily religiously grounded.  This clearly reveals the blatant, predetermined bias of this court's anti-religious presuppositions.  Is this not, in and of itself, grounds for vacating such a ruling?

It needs to be noted though that Judge Lynch's legal explanation is self-defeating to the court's desired outcome.  If what she states is legally correct then it must be legally binding on all parties, for all subject matter taught--or desired to be taught--in the course of public education; not just the subject matter which is convenient to this court. 

Enforced even handedly, Lynch's ruling must be applied to schools which feel obliged to shield students from ideas which are potentially offensive to the anti-religious as well. 

So how come these "tolerance" based rulings only ever seem to hold in one direction? 

Based on the judges' legal opinion, there is no reason why the myriad of subjects which give offense to the anti-religious should not also be taught as long as the school, "…imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them?"

While it is true that all things in the Bible are true (2 Timothy 3:16) it is also true that not everything that is true is in the Bible.  This means that conscientious parents can be expected to protest controversial issues which come up in a public educational system without any religious connection whatsoever.

The end result in a rational society is that such rulings which assume and discount religious motivation must be overturned--or we are no longer governed by something called the Constitution.

"Real Answers™" furnished courtesy of The Amy Foundation Internet Syndicate. To contact the author or The Amy Foundation, write or E-mail to: P. O. Box 16091, Lansing, MI 48901-6091; amyfoundtn@aol.com

Request this article:
To instantly receive a plain text copy of this article by email, enter your publication title, city and state, and email address, then retype the article number (shown in bold below). Then click the "Send It" button once.
Fields marked (*) are required

back to top