OPINION ANALYSIS
Court allows parents to opt their children out of school lessons
involving LGBTQ+ themes
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
Jun 27, 2025 https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-parents-to-opt-their-children-out-of-school-lessons-involving-lgbtq-themes/

I've been dreading the US Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor
issued on last day of term 6/25/2025. It's not because I don't believe
parents have a right to object to curriculum of a public school,
especially when it comes to ideas presented as fact that are truly a
viewpoint. It's not because I don't believe parents may instruct their
children in religion.

No. My objection is that free exercise of religion has been elevated
over other civil liberties in the First Amendment. I wamt there to be
freedom of thought WITHOUT considering religious implications.

In the facts of the case, there were two books in question, one about a
girl's reaction to attending a same-sex wedding. and another book that
is "affirming and inclusive" about a family attending a pride parade.

That's not heavy into teaching gender studies to kindergartners but
regardless, this is the basis for that kind of objection to curriculum.

If I were a parent, my objection to teaching gender studies wouldn't be
that it conflicts with the religious upbringing of my children (actually
it does 'cuz Jews question everything but I'm setting that aside) but
because I would want my children taught biology and not taught STOOPID
as if it were fact.

I've mentioned before that the textbook used to teach atomic structure
was very old and electrons were illustrated as orbiting the nucleus in a
fixed orbit as if it were a tiny solar system. We weren't taught that
electrons appear to move randomly, even if quantum physics without even first-year calculus is a bit much for little kids.

If a father, a university-trained chemist, objected, he wouldn't have
a religious basis to object to the curriculum. "That hasn't been the
accepted model in decades so stop teaching it!" isn't a religious
objection and that father has no rights in this Supreme Court decision.

But that was the law raised by the parents because there is no line of
Supreme Court cases in which parents have a right to object to
curriculum on the basis of "I don't want my child taught STOOPID".

I'm taking this to an extreme because I think the Supreme Court not only
opened the door to it but blew off the entire face of the building.

Aryeh Weinstein has a YouTube channel. In this video, he reacts to
someone else's video of a panel discussion. I didn't hunt down the
original video because while he makes obvious points in reaction, you
don't require his interpretation to draw your own conclusion.

The panel features an author who wrote critically about Islam, an ex-Muslim
who became a Christian, a Muslim, and an Islamic cleric. The author points
out that the ex-Muslim, an apostate, would be put to death in the Islamic tradition, and that he also, as a critic, would be put to death.

Muslim Shaykh STUNS Christian Panel: "Yes, You Should Be Killed" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klpXqLBILeA

The ex-Muslim asks the Islamic cleric if he should be put to death at
around 17 minutes in. In reply, the cleric does not mince words.

The Muslim answers, "In a proper Islamic jurisdiction, in an Islamic
nation, all the laws of Islam as the Sharia as revealed by God should be applied, including with proper due process, with a proper court hearing,
just like any nation of laws, including the death penalty, not only for apostates but also for blasphemers.

At my execution, at least I will have the comfort of knowing that I
received due process.

Early in the video, the author stated that at a Phoenix book fair,
prominent local Muslims approached him and he said "they" tried to kill
him, without providing details.

Maybe under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), issuance of a fatwah in the United States, like the one against Salman Rushdie (after which there was a
murder attempt in which Rushdie was seriously injured and has not fully recovered), cannot be prosecuted as conspiracy to commit murder given
that the unlawful act is unlikely to be imminent.

However, under the line of free exercise of religion cases that has led
to Mahmoud v. Taylor, is the fatwah even an unlawful threat? A properly constituted court has made a finding against the accused under Sharia law, sustaining the accusation, then issues the fatwah expecting that this
will give a third party, known or unknown, leave to put the convicted individual to death in a murder by proxy.

I don't see a conspiracy between the religious court and the third party
who ultimately commits the murder, but I do see the fatwah as a threat.

Is that threat unlawful?

BTR1701 keeps assuring me that forcing other people to think, behave, and
live a certain way as a matter of free exercise of religion remains
unlawful but decisions like this make me less and less confident. Again,
as a matter of free exercise of religion, a religious parent has a right
to have his objection taken seriously as a matter of religious
upbringing but the parent not making a religious objection to bad
curriculum does not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)