ANS -- It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about trump.

I found this on Facebook and found it amusing.  See if you do too.

--Kim

UniteWomen.org 

opedotsnrS:Mag23Jt17lmAa 2hm1m30ca136u1 8 lyf13088100t a82lf  · 

It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about trump. 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 child under the moral tenets of my faith. -Rex Huppke USA TODAY 6-29-25 (edited)

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 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.)

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..." (and dropping the F-bomb on national television, as noted in prior post*) 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." 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. 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 𝙫𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙥𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙨 𝙢𝙞𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙨.

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 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙤𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙢𝙥.

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.

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 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙢𝙥. 𝙇𝙚𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙤𝙨 𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙚.

*(F-bomb prior post back in June in comment)

usatoday.com

Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump. | Opinion

Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion.