Replies

I'm not missing anything--I think people are willing to back up this parent as long as she's using her kid to push her own brand of Christianity and not Islam. People are okay with a loose interpretation of the First Amendment as long as they don't think they need protection.

But if any poster on this thread had a child who came home with little candies wrapped in notes saying "Islam is sweet" and "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet" all of this hair-splitting about what constitutes establishment of religion would fall by the wayside. They'd be in the principal's office so fast it would make your head spin.

The first amendment says that government has to respect all religions equally. If schools are providing a captive audience for an energetic Christian mother to exploit her kid to spread the good news, then they have to let the Muslim mother try to convert your kids with candies and tracts about Allah. Schools don't want any part of it. Parents don't want any part of it. No one here wants their four year olds subjected to daily "peer-led" lessons on why Islam is the way to go Jesus is just a prophet.

And lesbianism is *not* diverting the issue--there are churches that believe that they have a special mission to bring acceptance of non-traditional families. Those lesbian parents have the same rights as Walz to express their faith. Why can't people acknowledge that when they defend people like Walz and Judge Moore, they're also defending Muslims and lesbian parents who want to convert *their* kids? If you'd only accept that, I'd be fine with your view of the First Amendment. But I've seen too many nasty threads on FR about how GLSEN and Muslims are invading the schools and trying to convert children to trust people to really stick to principles.