Sure it does.
Example #1: What's a Christian who won't witness in some way to his/her faith? (I'm not talking about selective silence; which we all do at times...I'm talking about zero expression = no endorsement that this faith is a reality to be exported).
Example #2: Let's say you have a relative who got "married" -- "married" to a fellow gay -- during that brief time CA said it was "legal" last year. The relative visits you regularly -- but you never acknowledge the existence of that other person as their "spouse" -- because you don't believe gay "marriage" exists. By not mentioning that relationship, you're endorsing the non-(legal) reality of gay "marriages."
I went to public school and the goal is to present the material as objectively as possible...
OK, let me tell you what your statement assumes -- even in just this short phrase above: You assume that public teachers are essentially...
..."neutral" who present material "objectively"
-- vs. somebody who is "faith-based" -- and is therefore automatically "subjective"
But that isn't the measurement of truth! (See my illustration at the end below)
...leave moral instruction to the parent/religious establishment.
Yeah, just try excising ALL moral instruction from the schools...
Teacher: "Oh, you didn't turn in your small-group project because two of the members refused to participate? Oh, that's OK...'cause we don't comment on the morality of teamwork."
Vice-Principal: "Oh, you brought a toy gun to school...Oh, that's OK 'cause we don't engage in 'moral instruction' when policies are disregarded."
(I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as "amoral instruction" when educators already DAILY comment upon relationships, politics, history, social science, etc...otherwise, educators could never favor abstinence over promiscuity, marriage over polygamy, etc!!!)
Besides, schools these days actually do try to talk about "character" -- even in small "dosages." But who can talk about character without at some point discussing love? ('cause all character is based upon how we relate to each other; and how we relate to each other is rooted in an ethic of loving your neighbor as yourself).
So, in response to your last sentence...to exemplify, you could have two distinct "multicultural" presentations to students on the Auca Indians of Ecuador as they were in history in the early 1950s:
The educator's presentation: He/she implies or states outright that the Auca culture has always been 100% fine as is and any "invasive" attempt to reach them by American missionaries was cultural imperialism.
Contrast that to a presentation by a family member of one of those missionaries who were killed by the Auca Indians in the 1950s: Yes, this missionary family member might give a more "subjective" presentation, but it'd be more based in reality if it focused on how fruitful the gospel has been within that culture -- and that the Jesus-stated ethic of love and friendship was best stated by the ultimate sacrificial efforts of those missionaries: "There's no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend."
The fact is that something like sacrificial service IS the best objectively stated reality that our students could hear. So instead of hearing this, they often get MAJOR dosages of SELF -- under the guise of "self-esteem" curricula! So when pub education is teaching the morality of "self-actualization" and "self-esteem" and focus mostly on yourSELF, don't tell us the P.R. propaganda that schools "leave moral instruction to the parent/religious establishment" -- because they don't!
The word “don't” does not go far enough. Government schools can **NOT** leave moral instruction to the parent or religious establishment.
They can NOT because a religiously, culturally, and politically neutral education is **impossible**! It is impossible for sentient beings to live in a moral vacuum. Something will fill that vacuum. It will be a godless morality or a God-centered one, and neither is neutral in content or consequences.
Absolutely correct! There is always bias, always a moral or immoral twist to everything. The public schools teaches atheism, nihilism and satanism whether the teachers know it or not. It is how the curricula is designed over the last century by progressives:
Tolerance means tolerance of immorality.
Diversity means tolerance of everything other than Christians and Jews and white heterosexual men.
Multiculturalism means that the American culture is not exceptional, it is, in fact, oppressive and evil, and is not equivalent to all those other cultures--even ones where polygamy, cannibalism, rampant homosexuality, and child burnings occur.
Feminism means that women are no different than men ( biology and science facts ignored)--lies don't matter when marxist ideas are promoted).
Homosexual marriage is no different than Heterosexual marriage (more lies taught to children to create little promiscuous hedonists)etc., etc., etc.,
Schools are NEVER morally neutral and, in fact, teach immorality.