Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts.
So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion.
In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, 'The Court recognized that parents have a right 'to direct the religious upbringing of their children' and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.'
Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are 'radical left thugs that live like vermin' and describing a female vice president of the United States as 'mentally impaired' and 'a weak and foolish woman' are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief.
So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.)
Opinion: I can't wait to get a Trump Mobile gold phone to pay respect to my MAGA king
As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some 'Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.'
Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like 'I moved on her like a bitch' and 'she's now got the big phony tits and everything' and 'Grab 'em by the pussy,' that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency.
That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president.
Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called 'Love Violet,' which 'follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet's 'heart skip' and 'thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.' Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and 'galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.''
While my religion would define such a story as 'sweet' and 'loving,' Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it 'hostile' to parents' religious beliefs.
Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum
As Alito wrote, 'Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.'
OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it's normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito's words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.'
I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump's behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith.
Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me
Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: 'The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.'
Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @rexhuppke.bsky.social and on Facebook at facebook.com/RexIsAJerk
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court just saved kids from reading about Trump | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
17 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Nations are meeting to drum up trillions to combat poverty — but the US isn't going
UNITED NATIONS — Many of the world's nations are gathering starting Monday in Spain for a high-level conference to tackle the growing gap between rich and poor nations and try to drum up trillions of dollars needed to close it. The United States, previously a major contributor, pulled its participation, so finding funding will be tough.
CBS News
26 minutes ago
- CBS News
Embattled San Francisco Zoo CEO refuses to step down
Mayor Daniel Lurie has joined a growing chorus of voices calling for new leadership at the San Francisco Zoo, citing stability concerns at the cherished city institution. "I am confident that stable, permanent leadership will strengthen the zoo and our city's ability to welcome pandas, and the zoo board's decision to identify a new COO and develop a plan to name a new CEO represents real steps in the right direction," Lurie said in a statement released Friday. However, Zoo CEO Tanya Peterson has made it clear she has no intention of resigning. "She has always said that she would resign if it was in the best interest of the zoo," said zoo spokesperson Sam Singer. "But no one has asked her to resign, nor has she offered her resignation. She's plowing full speed ahead to try to bring the giant pandas to San Francisco." The debate over leadership comes amid tensions between zoo management and employees. The union representing many zoo workers recently passed a vote of "no confidence" in Peterson's leadership, citing concerns about safety conditions for visitors, staff, and animals. Critics have pointed directly to Peterson, who has served as CEO for 17 years, as a central figure in the zoo's problems. Some members of the zoo board have reportedly made attempts to remove her, but so far, those efforts have failed. And those board members resigned. Officially, only the board has the authority to remove Peterson. "She's got the skin of an elephant. This doesn't bother her at all. It's like water off her back. She's going to keep doing what's right for the kids and families in San Francisco," Singer added. On Sunday, at the city's Pride celebration, Mayor Lurie declined to answer specific questions about efforts to oust Peterson, saying only, "We're going to talk to the zoo board in the coming days. More to come on that one." Meanwhile, many zoo visitors remain unaware of the political turmoil behind the scenes. "The zoo is always the same and always fun," said Drew Bernier, a father of two young children who makes monthly visits with his family from San Bruno. "We love the zoo. We've got a guest pass. We have the kiddos, one and a half and three and a half [years old]." Bernier said their experiences at the zoo have been consistently positive. "I've never felt not safe at the zoo," he said. "You wouldn't know that there's anything outside that's creating tension." Despite the calls for change, the zoo continues its efforts to grow and improve. Most recently, it hired Cassandra Costello as its new Chief Operating Officer. Peterson is reportedly focused on one of her marquee projects: bringing a pair of giant pandas from China to San Francisco next year.
Gizmodo
26 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Trump Bullies Canada Into Killing Its Big Tech Tax
Donald Trump has reason to celebrate. In a stunningly rapid reversal, Ottawa has caved to his demands and rescinded a controversial tax aimed at American tech giants, ending a standoff that began on Friday. 'Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,' Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced in a statement Sunday evening. Following the announcement, Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Trump 'have agreed that the parties will resume negotiations with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025.' This marks a stunning and swift victory for Trump, who shocked markets on Friday with a post on his Truth Social platform. He declared that due to Canada's decision to impose the Digital Services Tax on American tech companies, 'we are terminating ALL discussions on trade with Canada, effective immediately.' For Trump, this capitulation provides a much needed political win at a critical moment. His presidency has been defined by an aggressive 'America First' trade policy, launching high-stakes trade wars with tariffs on goods from China and Europe. This confrontational style is now coming to a head, as a July 9 deadline approaches for nations around the world to finalize new trade deals with the U.S. or face a new wave of steep, 'reciprocal' tariffs. Forcing a key ally like Canada to fold so quickly and publicly sends a powerful message to other negotiating partners. The victory also helps Trump project strength on the home front after a bruising political showdown. His signature legislative priority, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' has faced intense criticism, even from former allies like Elon Musk, over its massive spending and deep cuts to popular programs. Having been forced to navigate a fractured Republican party to get the bill through Congress, securing a clear-cut win against a foreign government over an unpopular tech tax provides the administration with valuable positive momentum. The confrontation centered on Canada's Digital Services Tax. The measure imposes a 3% tax on the Canadian revenue of large digital companies, like Amazon, Google, and Meta. The tax has been in effect since last year, but the first payments are due this Monday, June 30. 'The June 30, 2025 collection will be halted,' Champagne said in his statement. The tax has been a major point of contention. While Canada is not the only country to implement such a measure, joining nations like France, Italy, and the United Kingdom, the U.S. government views these taxes as unfairly targeting American firms. In recent weeks, a coalition of Canadian and American business groups, along with U.S. tech industry organizations and American elected officials, had signed letters calling on the Canadian government to repeal or suspend the tax. Prime Minister Mark Carney sought to frame the decision as a step toward a broader, more beneficial agreement. 'In our negotiations on a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the United States, Canada's new government will always be guided by the overall contribution of any possible agreement to the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses,' Carney said.
