Freedom of religion meets public education in a groundbreaking Supreme Court case that could reshape parental rights across America. A diverse coalition of Maryland parents—Christian, Jewish, and Muslim—have taken their fight all the way to the highest court in the land after being denied the right to opt their young children out of curriculum they find objectionable to their religious beliefs.
What began as a local dispute in Montgomery County has transformed into a potential landmark ruling on religious liberty and parental authority. These determined families have faced rejection at every level of the legal system over two years—from their local school to federal appeals court—before the Supreme Court agreed to hear their case. Their perseverance mirrors the "running the race" metaphor from Hebrews 12:1 that Ken Mercer references throughout the episode.
At the heart of the controversy is the school board's "Inclusivity Initiative," which introduced materials that parents found highly sexualized and contrary to their faith traditions. Critically, these parents aren't seeking to remove books or curriculum for other students—they simply want the right to opt out their own children, including those as young as four and five years old. The school board initially permitted these opt-outs but reversed course in 2023, citing administrative concerns and even going so far as to stop informing parents when controversial materials would be presented.
Several Supreme Court justices, including Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Alito, expressed significant skepticism about the school board's position during oral arguments. Chief Justice Roberts questioned whether five-year-olds could realistically be exposed to certain content without affirming it, while Justice Barrett probed whether the curriculum was merely presenting diverse ideas or prescribing "the right view of the world." The Court's forthcoming decision will answer a fundamental question: Do parents have the ultimate right to direct their children's education, particularly when it conflicts with their sincere religious convictions?
Pray for wisdom for the nine Supreme Court justices as they deliberate on this crucial case that will determine whether parents can protect their children's religious upbringing in public education settings.
Please also visit "Mercer Moments in American History" at our YouTube Channel! We are dedicated to both current events, and major moments in American History that for some reason are now erased, deleted from our textbooks and classrooms.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is Ken Mercer of Mercer Moments in American
History.
Today is a special currentevent where I'm asking for
prayers for moms and dads fromthe state of Maryland.
The state of Maryland.
These are parents who have justappealed and appeared before
the highest court in our country, the SCOTUS, the Supreme Court
(00:23):
of the United States.
These moms and dads believethey are fighting for the
protection of their youngestchildren, including four and
five-year-olds.
They're complaining that someof the materials, the books and
curriculum that have been added,offered by the state of
Maryland, a school in the stateof Maryland, are highly
(00:45):
sexualized, highly sexualizedand the agenda is contrary to
the faith and value of theseparents.
Now they're just asking for achance to opt out.
They're not asking to removebooks.
Now the media will try to tellyou that this is about book
banning, book burning.
That's just a lie.
(01:05):
The parents are saying no.
We're saying the material, weobject to it.
It's objectionable due to ourfaith and our values and we're
not asking to remove anymaterials.
We're just asking for the right, as moms and dads, to opt out
our sons and daughters,including four and five-year-old
children.
(01:26):
Now these parents havepersevered Listen closely to
what I'm saying.
They have lost every step ofthe way and I call these moms
and dads from the state ofMaryland my Hebrews 12.1.
Moms and dads, if you're abeliever, you follow Hebrews.
Chapter 12 is what I callperseverance.
It talks about running the raceand running the race as hard as
(01:46):
you can and finishing the race,completing the race.
That's why I call itperseverance.
Well, these moms and dads havefollowed the process.
First they had a complaint.
They went to their school andthey lost.
They went to their countyschool board and lost.
They went to their state boardof education of Maryland and
(02:07):
they lost.
It's been going on for twoyears now.
Then they went to the statecourts and lost.
Then they went for a federaljudge to say, hey, as moms and
dads, don't we have the right toopt out our children,
especially if we believe it's aviolation of our religious
freedom, of our faith and values.
They lost at the federal judge.
(02:28):
And then they went to thefederal appeals court, the
second highest court they couldin Virginia, for in their case
the appeals court was the stateof Virginia and Maryland.
They went there and they lostagain.
And now, by a miracle of God amiracle of God they're appearing
before the Supreme Court of theUnited States, what I call the
(02:49):
SCOTUS.
I say a miracle of God becausethe Supreme Court only takes a
very small percentage of casesand they chose to review this
case.
I believe this will be alandmark case, a landmark case
for parental rights and thefreedom of religion of moms and
(03:10):
dads.
This is Ken Mercer.
I'm a report.
I'll let you decide, but I amasking for prayers for the moms
and dads in the state ofMaryland and prayers for the
nine men and women of our UnitedStates Supreme Court In the
next few weeks.
They've already heard the case.
The next few weeks they'regoing to come back with their
(03:30):
decision and I asked for prayers.
Do moms and dads have the rightto be moms and dads and do they
have the right, as parents, toopt out their children?
Again, our report you decide,and I'm going to read from the
actual transcripts of theSupreme Court what was actually
said in the courtroom of ournation's highest court.
(03:53):
I'm going to begin a level setof two key items.
This case is different from acase I presented you two weeks
ago, also the state of Maryland,but a young high school senior,
a young Christian girl, who twoyears ago, the same time frame,
the same state, the same county.
She took the required healthclass, but the health class had
(04:15):
changed.
The students didn't change it,moms and dads didn't change it.
The school board changed theclass and introduced this new
curriculum, which this younghigh school senior a 4.76 GPA, a
1,450 in her SAT, the top 5% inthe country.
They found the new materialsand the book's curriculum to be
(04:39):
objectionable to their faith andvalues and they even cited
anti-Christian bias, christiandiscrimination.
She was denied the right tograduate an honor student.
I share that with you.
It's a different case, but thesame state, the same county.
This has gone to the MarylandSupreme Court.
(05:01):
And the second thing I getattacked on is this, mr Mercer,
this is just another Christianright-wing radical group going
against the school board and thestate of Maryland.
Well, listen to me.
The Council for the Parents atthe Supreme Court is
representing a coalition of momsand dads Christian, jewish and
(05:23):
Muslim, or Muslim, depending onhow you pronounce it Parents of
three different faiths.
A coalition of parentsChristian, muslim and Jewish who
each found this materialobjectionable to their faith and
values.
And again, don't listen to themedia.
They're not asking to ban abook or burn a book.
(05:45):
No, they're saying we want theright as moms and dads to opt
out of certain material that wefind objectionable.
And I will tell you again thismaterial, the students didn't
change it, the moms and dadsdidn't change it, the school
board, they changed thecurriculum Again.
(06:07):
The Supreme Court's alreadyheard this case and I'm going to
share with you now some quotesthat came from the exact
presentations, the exacthearings of the Supreme Court of
the United States.
The parents are basically askingcan we just be parents, can we
(06:28):
be moms and dads?
In fact, the quote of theircounsel to the Supreme Court, a
matter of public record, saidquote let us be the parents,
keep us involved in the schooldecision-making process, don't
try to cut us out.
Let me repeat that that's keyto the argument.
(06:52):
Let us be the parents, keep usinvolved in the school
decision-making process, don'ttry to cut us out, us being the
moms and dads.
Now I must tell you I wasblessed to be an elected state
official in Texas for 16 yearsthe State House of
Representatives, where I servedin the Committee of Higher
(07:14):
Education, and 14 years in theState Board of Education on
curriculum and charter schoolsand finance.
I was blessed to serve over 5.5million children over 9,000
campuses in Texas.
And my opposition would alwayssay, mr Mercer, the number one
(07:34):
correlation of success ineducation is parental
involvement.
Remember that the number onecorrelation of success in
education is parentalinvolvement and I agree with
that.
I applaud that.
But let me ask you are theparents being involved here?
Is that happening here in thestate of Maryland?
(07:57):
What had happened is MontgomeryCounty Public Schools in the
state of Maryland.
They began this new seriescalled the Inclusivity
Initiative.
Inclusivity Initiative a newcurriculum.
Again, I'm going to stress this.
This is so important.
The students didn't change,moms and dads didn't change.
(08:18):
The school board changed andthe parents found this material
objectionable for the elementaryeven, including four and
five-year-old children, evenincluding four and five-year-old
children.
Now, to be fair, the parentssaid the parents' coalition in
their statement said initially,initially the school board quote
(08:41):
initially honored parentalopt-outs in accordance with
their own guidelines and theMaryland law.
Well, that was their ownguidelines, that was the
Maryland state law that moms anddads be given the right to opt
out.
And when I hear that I go.
Well, why is this case at theSupreme Court?
Why wasn't this settledimmediately in a lower court if
(09:03):
that's the law.
Initially, that's what happened.
The parents had a right to optout, but apparently the school
board reversed that.
The Montgomery County SchoolBoard said in March of 2023,
again, this has been going onfor two years.
Quote concerns aboutabsenteeism and administrative
(09:24):
burden made them changedirection.
Now, if you're in the realworld of the business and your
customers don't want yourproduct, it raises a red flag
right Concerns about absenteeismand administrative burdens.
So in the parents briefing itsays quote, without any
explanation, without explanation, it it being the Montgomery
(09:48):
County School Board.
It announced that, beginningwith the 2023-2024 school year,
students and family may notchoose to opt out and will not
be informed when these books areread.
Key change there and that's whywe're here, that's why it's
gone to so many sessions so far,and now the United States
(10:08):
Supreme Court to so manysessions so far and now the
United States Supreme Court.
The school board changed andsaid because so many people are
being absent in theadministrative burdens, they
don't want this class, theydon't want this curriculum.
We decided to say you knowparents can no longer opt out
and we're not going to tell youwhen that material, when it's
going to be read in class.
(10:30):
Let me share with you some ofthe quotes from again the
soundbite.
You can find them online forthe actual Supreme Court Justice
.
The first thing I'm going toshare with you is Justice Neil
Gorsuch.
Supreme Court Justice NeilGorsuch began and I'm going to
begin with his quote, againonline.
You can read the materials.
You can hear it for yourself.
One of the school board membersat that time had an interview
(10:53):
and it's in the court papers.
There was a student whoobjected to these new books and
curriculum and that school boardmember in the interview said
this student was parroting dogma, parroting being like the
animal, the bird, a parrotparroting dogma passed on by her
parents.
Wow, and then that school boardmember compared the complaints
(11:19):
to those of white supremacistswho opposed civil rights laws.
So I guess if you're a four orfive-year-old child or first
second grader and you complain,you're just parenting mom and
dad who are probably whitesupremacist.
Wow, justice Gorsuch hit thenail on the head and I thank him
(11:39):
for entering that into thecourt to be heard.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett alsoexpressed concern about the
curriculum.
So are we just trying toexpress these kids to different
ideas, which is what the schoolboard said?
The school board said we'rejust trying to give them another
point of view.
She said are we trying toimpress upon these students that
this is the right view of theworld and how you should think
(12:03):
about things?
You heard me talk before in myother programs about what is
education versus indoctrination,what is classroom education
versus political indoctrination.
Just my comment to decidethat's not in the court hearings
, but my comment when I hearthis.
(12:25):
One of the books in thecurriculum they're concerned
about said what are your wordsAsking the four, five, six,
seven, eight-year about?
Said what are your words Askingthe four, five, six, seven
eight-year-old children?
What are your words?
Your pronouns can change.
Quote like the weather.
End of quote your pronouns am I, he, a, she, I, we, them.
(12:46):
Those can change like the wind.
Justice Samuel Liddle asked whyisn't it feasible Again, just to
allow moms and dads to opt out?
Justice Brett Kavanaugh addedagain I'm not understanding why
it's not feasible.
So here we have two justices,samuel Liddle and Brett
(13:08):
Kavanaugh, considered to beconservatives of the court,
supreme Court, who are sayingwhy isn't it feasible?
What I'm hearing is why is thiscase before the Supreme Court
if it's the law that moms anddads have the right to review
materials and opt out.
Why did this go to the school,to the school board, to the
state board of education, to thestate courts, to the federal
(13:29):
courts, all the way to theSupreme Court?
Why isn't that feasible?
Just to allow moms and dads toopt out?
Now Justice John Roberts, theChief Justice of the Supreme
Court.
He said that the school boardhad an argument saying that just
because we bought these booksand he bought them with taxpayer
(13:51):
money just because we boughtthese books and we put them in
the classroom and we're going tomake the kids read these books,
it doesn't mean we're requiringthe children to affirm or
support the material or affirmand support the content of these
books.
Think about that.
Just because we bought thebooks, we put them in the
(14:13):
classroom and the kids have toread the books, it doesn't mean
they have to agree with what'sin there.
And the Chief Justice, johnRoberts, said, quote is that a
realistic concept when you aretalking about a five-year-old?
Wow.
(14:33):
And then Amy Comey Barrett,justice Barrett, again she said
quote it's not just exposure toan idea, right?
She says, it's saying that thisis the right view of the world
and how we think about things orhow we should think about
things.
She compared it to like you'resaying like two plus two is four
.
Well, you can see the concernthere.
(14:56):
Is it education?
In my words, is itindoctrination?
A liberal justice Supreme CourtI will not mention the name,
but you can listen to it said ifthe school teaches something
that the parent disagrees with,you have a choice.
You don't have to send your kidto that school.
(15:19):
I was shocked at that comment.
I thought is that a matter ofhumor?
Was that a commercial forschool choice with no government
strings?
If the school teaches somethingthe parent disagrees with, you
have a choice.
You do not have to send yourchild to that school.
Wow, and anybody knows that.
(15:40):
If you change another school,there's usually a fee in a
district, another public schoolor a fee to go to a private
school.
And everyone knows if youchange a kid to another public
school, another county, you'repaying for the transportation
and sometimes there's a districttransfer fee.
And I would suggest this is theschool your taxes are going to
(16:03):
and they're saying this goessomewhere else.
I think about the millions ofinner city and I would suggest
this is the school your taxesare going to and they're saying
just go somewhere else.
I think about the millions ofinner city moms and dads, often
low-income or single parents,who are just praying for a good
school and a safe school.
A good school and a safe schoolthat's all they want.
What do they do when they'reconfronted with this and they're
told just go to another school?
(16:25):
Well, I'm going to end today.
This is Ken Mercer MercerMoments in American History,
again with a current event, whatI've become a landmark case in
American history.
The decision should come out inthe next few weeks from the
SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of theUnited States.
Do parents have rights?
(16:46):
Do moms and dads have rights?
I've got to remind you againthese parents.
I have to applaud and pray forthem.
They followed the processcorrectly.
They went to their local school.
They lost.
They went to their countyschool board in Maryland.
They lost.
They went to the Maryland StateBoard of Education.
(17:06):
God bless them.
They lost and they stillpersevered.
They lost at the state courts.
They went to a federal judge,the first level of federal
appeal.
A federal judge asked for theright to opt out on sons and
daughters, even four andfive-year-old children.
Opt out on sons and daughters,even four and five-year-old
children.
They lost.
They went to another stateVirginia.
(17:27):
That's where their Court ofAppeals was for Virginia and
Maryland.
They lost again and then theywent and they appeared before
the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, who will decide in the
next couple of weeks.
I will remind you, these parentsare not asking to burn or ban
books.
No, that's what the media willtell you.
They're asking for the right toopt out their precious sons and
(17:48):
daughters, even four and fiveyear old children, from
materials they findobjectionable.
And I remind you again, it'snot a bunch of right wing
Christian type people.
These are Jewish, christian andMuslim moms and dads who have
come together and all three ofthem say this is objectionable
to our faith and our values.
(18:10):
Pray for the moms and dads andpray for the nine members of our
United States Supreme Court.
Again, ken Mercer, mercerMoments in American History.
Thank you.
May God bless you.
This is Ken Mercer of Mercer Moments in American
History.
Today is a special currentevent where I'm asking for
prayers for moms and dads fromthe state of Maryland.
The state of Maryland.
These are parents who have justappealed and appeared before
the highest court in our country, the SCOTUS, the Supreme Court
(00:23):
of the United States.
These moms and dads believethey are fighting for the
protection of their youngestchildren, including four and
five-year-olds.
They're complaining that someof the materials, the books and
curriculum that have been added,offered by the state of
Maryland, a school in the stateof Maryland, are highly
(00:45):
sexualized, highly sexualizedand the agenda is contrary to
the faith and value of theseparents.
Now they're just asking for achance to opt out.
They're not asking to removebooks.
Now the media will try to tellyou that this is about book
banning, book burning.
That's just a lie.
(01:05):
The parents are saying no.
We're saying the material, weobject to it.
It's objectionable due to ourfaith and our values and we're
not asking to remove anymaterials.
We're just asking for the right, as moms and dads, to opt out
our sons and daughters,including four and five-year-old
children.
(01:26):
Now these parents havepersevered Listen closely to
what I'm saying.
They have lost every step ofthe way and I call these moms
and dads from the state ofMaryland my Hebrews 12.1.
Moms and dads, if you're abeliever, you follow Hebrews.
Chapter 12 is what I callperseverance.
It talks about running the raceand running the race as hard as
(01:46):
you can and finishing the race,completing the race.
That's why I call itperseverance.
Well, these moms and dads havefollowed the process.
First they had a complaint.
They went to their school andthey lost.
They went to their countyschool board and lost.
They went to their state boardof education of Maryland and
(02:07):
they lost.
It's been going on for twoyears now.
Then they went to the statecourts and lost.
Then they went for a federaljudge to say, hey, as moms and
dads, don't we have the right toopt out our children,
especially if we believe it's aviolation of our religious
freedom, of our faith and values.
They lost at the federal judge.
(02:28):
And then they went to thefederal appeals court, the
second highest court they couldin Virginia, for in their case
the appeals court was the stateof Virginia and Maryland.
They went there and they lostagain.
And now, by a miracle of God amiracle of God they're appearing
before the Supreme Court of theUnited States, what I call the
(02:49):
SCOTUS.
I say a miracle of God becausethe Supreme Court only takes a
very small percentage of casesand they chose to review this
case.
I believe this will be alandmark case, a landmark case
for parental rights and thefreedom of religion of moms and
(03:10):
dads.
This is Ken Mercer.
I'm a report.
I'll let you decide, but I amasking for prayers for the moms
and dads in the state ofMaryland and prayers for the
nine men and women of our UnitedStates Supreme Court In the
next few weeks.
They've already heard the case.
The next few weeks they'regoing to come back with their
(03:30):
decision and I asked for prayers.
Do moms and dads have the rightto be moms and dads and do they
have the right, as parents, toopt out their children?
Again, our report you decide,and I'm going to read from the
actual transcripts of theSupreme Court what was actually
said in the courtroom of ournation's highest court.
(03:53):
I'm going to begin a level setof two key items.
This case is different from acase I presented you two weeks
ago, also the state of Maryland,but a young high school senior,
a young Christian girl, who twoyears ago, the same time frame,
the same state, the same county.
She took the required healthclass, but the health class had
(04:15):
changed.
The students didn't change it,moms and dads didn't change it.
The school board changed theclass and introduced this new
curriculum, which this younghigh school senior a 4.76 GPA, a
1,450 in her SAT, the top 5% inthe country.
They found the new materialsand the book's curriculum to be
(04:39):
objectionable to their faith andvalues and they even cited
anti-Christian bias, christiandiscrimination.
She was denied the right tograduate an honor student.
I share that with you.
It's a different case, but thesame state, the same county.
This has gone to the MarylandSupreme Court.
(05:01):
And the second thing I getattacked on is this, mr Mercer,
this is just another Christianright-wing radical group going
against the school board and thestate of Maryland.
Well, listen to me.
The Council for the Parents atthe Supreme Court is
representing a coalition of momsand dads Christian, jewish and
(05:23):
Muslim, or Muslim, depending onhow you pronounce it Parents of
three different faiths.
A coalition of parentsChristian, muslim and Jewish who
each found this materialobjectionable to their faith and
values.
And again, don't listen to themedia.
They're not asking to ban abook or burn a book.
(05:45):
No, they're saying we want theright as moms and dads to opt
out of certain material that wefind objectionable.
And I will tell you again thismaterial, the students didn't
change it, the moms and dadsdidn't change it, the school
board, they changed thecurriculum Again.
(06:07):
The Supreme Court's alreadyheard this case and I'm going to
share with you now some quotesthat came from the exact
presentations, the exacthearings of the Supreme Court of
the United States.
The parents are basically askingcan we just be parents, can we
(06:28):
be moms and dads?
In fact, the quote of theircounsel to the Supreme Court, a
matter of public record, saidquote let us be the parents,
keep us involved in the schooldecision-making process, don't
try to cut us out.
Let me repeat that that's keyto the argument.
(06:52):
Let us be the parents, keep usinvolved in the school
decision-making process, don'ttry to cut us out, us being the
moms and dads.
Now I must tell you I wasblessed to be an elected state
official in Texas for 16 yearsthe State House of
Representatives, where I servedin the Committee of Higher
(07:14):
Education, and 14 years in theState Board of Education on
curriculum and charter schoolsand finance.
I was blessed to serve over 5.5million children over 9,000
campuses in Texas.
And my opposition would alwayssay, mr Mercer, the number one
(07:34):
correlation of success ineducation is parental
involvement.
Remember that the number onecorrelation of success in
education is parentalinvolvement and I agree with
that.
I applaud that.
But let me ask you are theparents being involved here?
Is that happening here in thestate of Maryland?
(07:57):
What had happened is MontgomeryCounty Public Schools in the
state of Maryland.
They began this new seriescalled the Inclusivity
Initiative.
Inclusivity Initiative a newcurriculum.
Again, I'm going to stress this.
This is so important.
The students didn't change,moms and dads didn't change.
(08:18):
The school board changed andthe parents found this material
objectionable for the elementaryeven, including four and
five-year-old children, evenincluding four and five-year-old
children.
Now, to be fair, the parentssaid the parents' coalition in
their statement said initially,initially the school board quote
(08:41):
initially honored parentalopt-outs in accordance with
their own guidelines and theMaryland law.
Well, that was their ownguidelines, that was the
Maryland state law that moms anddads be given the right to opt
out.
And when I hear that I go.
Well, why is this case at theSupreme Court?
Why wasn't this settledimmediately in a lower court if
(09:03):
that's the law.
Initially, that's what happened.
The parents had a right to optout, but apparently the school
board reversed that.
The Montgomery County SchoolBoard said in March of 2023,
again, this has been going onfor two years.
Quote concerns aboutabsenteeism and administrative
(09:24):
burden made them changedirection.
Now, if you're in the realworld of the business and your
customers don't want yourproduct, it raises a red flag
right Concerns about absenteeismand administrative burdens.
So in the parents briefing itsays quote, without any
explanation, without explanation, it it being the Montgomery
(09:48):
County School Board.
It announced that, beginningwith the 2023-2024 school year,
students and family may notchoose to opt out and will not
be informed when these books areread.
Key change there and that's whywe're here, that's why it's
gone to so many sessions so far,and now the United States
(10:08):
Supreme Court to so manysessions so far and now the
United States Supreme Court.
The school board changed andsaid because so many people are
being absent in theadministrative burdens, they
don't want this class, theydon't want this curriculum.
We decided to say you knowparents can no longer opt out
and we're not going to tell youwhen that material, when it's
going to be read in class.
(10:30):
Let me share with you some ofthe quotes from again the
soundbite.
You can find them online forthe actual Supreme Court Justice
.
The first thing I'm going toshare with you is Justice Neil
Gorsuch.
Supreme Court Justice NeilGorsuch began and I'm going to
begin with his quote, againonline.
You can read the materials.
You can hear it for yourself.
One of the school board membersat that time had an interview
(10:53):
and it's in the court papers.
There was a student whoobjected to these new books and
curriculum and that school boardmember in the interview said
this student was parroting dogma, parroting being like the
animal, the bird, a parrotparroting dogma passed on by her
parents.
Wow, and then that school boardmember compared the complaints
(11:19):
to those of white supremacistswho opposed civil rights laws.
So I guess if you're a four orfive-year-old child or first
second grader and you complain,you're just parenting mom and
dad who are probably whitesupremacist.
Wow, justice Gorsuch hit thenail on the head and I thank him
(11:39):
for entering that into thecourt to be heard.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett alsoexpressed concern about the
curriculum.
So are we just trying toexpress these kids to different
ideas, which is what the schoolboard said?
The school board said we'rejust trying to give them another
point of view.
She said are we trying toimpress upon these students that
this is the right view of theworld and how you should think
(12:03):
about things?
You heard me talk before in myother programs about what is
education versus indoctrination,what is classroom education
versus political indoctrination.
Just my comment to decidethat's not in the court hearings
, but my comment when I hearthis.
(12:25):
One of the books in thecurriculum they're concerned
about said what are your wordsAsking the four, five, six,
seven, eight-year about?
Said what are your words Askingthe four, five, six, seven
eight-year-old children?
What are your words?
Your pronouns can change.
Quote like the weather.
End of quote your pronouns am I, he, a, she, I, we, them.
(12:46):
Those can change like the wind.
Justice Samuel Liddle asked whyisn't it feasible Again, just to
allow moms and dads to opt out?
Justice Brett Kavanaugh addedagain I'm not understanding why
it's not feasible.
So here we have two justices,samuel Liddle and Brett
(13:08):
Kavanaugh, considered to beconservatives of the court,
supreme Court, who are sayingwhy isn't it feasible?
What I'm hearing is why is thiscase before the Supreme Court
if it's the law that moms anddads have the right to review
materials and opt out.
Why did this go to the school,to the school board, to the
state board of education, to thestate courts, to the federal
(13:29):
courts, all the way to theSupreme Court?
Why isn't that feasible?
Just to allow moms and dads toopt out?
Now Justice John Roberts, theChief Justice of the Supreme
Court.
He said that the school boardhad an argument saying that just
because we bought these booksand he bought them with taxpayer
(13:51):
money just because we boughtthese books and we put them in
the classroom and we're going tomake the kids read these books,
it doesn't mean we're requiringthe children to affirm or
support the material or affirmand support the content of these
books.
Think about that.
Just because we bought thebooks, we put them in the
(14:13):
classroom and the kids have toread the books, it doesn't mean
they have to agree with what'sin there.
And the Chief Justice, johnRoberts, said, quote is that a
realistic concept when you aretalking about a five-year-old?
Wow.
(14:33):
And then Amy Comey Barrett,justice Barrett, again she said
quote it's not just exposure toan idea, right?
She says, it's saying that thisis the right view of the world
and how we think about things orhow we should think about
things.
She compared it to like you'resaying like two plus two is four
.
Well, you can see the concernthere.
(14:56):
Is it education?
In my words, is itindoctrination?
A liberal justice Supreme CourtI will not mention the name,
but you can listen to it said ifthe school teaches something
that the parent disagrees with,you have a choice.
You don't have to send your kidto that school.
(15:19):
I was shocked at that comment.
I thought is that a matter ofhumor?
Was that a commercial forschool choice with no government
strings?
If the school teaches somethingthe parent disagrees with, you
have a choice.
You do not have to send yourchild to that school.
Wow, and anybody knows that.
(15:40):
If you change another school,there's usually a fee in a
district, another public schoolor a fee to go to a private
school.
And everyone knows if youchange a kid to another public
school, another county, you'repaying for the transportation
and sometimes there's a districttransfer fee.
And I would suggest this is theschool your taxes are going to
(16:03):
and they're saying this goessomewhere else.
I think about the millions ofinner city and I would suggest
this is the school your taxesare going to and they're saying
just go somewhere else.
I think about the millions ofinner city moms and dads, often
low-income or single parents,who are just praying for a good
school and a safe school.
A good school and a safe schoolthat's all they want.
What do they do when they'reconfronted with this and they're
told just go to another school?
(16:25):
Well, I'm going to end today.
This is Ken Mercer MercerMoments in American History,
again with a current event, whatI've become a landmark case in
American history.
The decision should come out inthe next few weeks from the
SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of theUnited States.
Do parents have rights?
(16:46):
Do moms and dads have rights?
I've got to remind you againthese parents.
I have to applaud and pray forthem.
They followed the processcorrectly.
They went to their local school.
They lost.
They went to their countyschool board in Maryland.
They lost.
They went to the Maryland StateBoard of Education.
(17:06):
God bless them.
They lost and they stillpersevered.
They lost at the state courts.
They went to a federal judge,the first level of federal
appeal.
A federal judge asked for theright to opt out on sons and
daughters, even four andfive-year-old children.
Opt out on sons and daughters,even four and five-year-old
children.
They lost.
They went to another stateVirginia.
(17:27):
That's where their Court ofAppeals was for Virginia and
Maryland.
They lost again and then theywent and they appeared before
the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, who will decide in the
next couple of weeks.
I will remind you, these parentsare not asking to burn or ban
books.
No, that's what the media willtell you.
They're asking for the right toopt out their precious sons and
(17:48):
daughters, even four and fiveyear old children, from
materials they findobjectionable.
And I remind you again, it'snot a bunch of right wing
Christian type people.
These are Jewish, christian andMuslim moms and dads who have
come together and all three ofthem say this is objectionable
to our faith and our values.
(18:10):
Pray for the moms and dads andpray for the nine members of our
United States Supreme Court.
Again, ken Mercer, mercerMoments in American History.
Thank you.
May God bless you.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.