Pope Francis (88) passed away last Monday, the 21^st of April at his residence in the Vatican City. He had been elected pope, the head of the Catholic Church, in March of 2013. A new pope will be selected at the 2025 papal conclave that will be convened in early May.

Ironically, he had met with Vice President JD Vance just the day before, an Easter Sunday. Prepare yourself for the conspiracy theories to fly because of that meeting.  

Pope Francis’ death comes as the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a suit entitled Mahmoud v. Taylor, from a group of Maryland parents who want to keep their elementary school kids from instruction on gender and sexuality, including same-sex marriage and gender identity. Notice the word “elementary” in that last sentence – as in kindergarten, folks.

Parents claim the instruction is against their religious beliefs, which is more than likely just an excuse for the fact they just don’t believe in nor want that type of woke idealism shoved down their first graders throat. Who can blame them? Why hide behind religion? The Maryland parents include Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery county in Maryland who claim that without the option to be excused, it amounts to government indoctrination for sensitive matters of sexuality.

LGBTQ-themed books were introduced in 2022 and at that time the school board allowed parents to opt out if they thought the curriculum to be objectionable. A year later they reversed themselves because the opt-out program ran counter to values of inclusion.

This reversal allowed books like Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, written by Jodie Patterson, an author who has a young transgender son and is therefore sharing her messed up life with everyone else. Okay, it’s her right to author anything she wants, but why does that sort of material belong in a school library? And who was the bonehead that placed that book in the library?

Originally, three families sued the Montgomery County Board of Education school over the reversal on religious grounds. The parents argue that SCOTUS already had settled this matter back in 1972 with Wisconsin v. Yoder, stating Wisconsin could not require Amish children to attend public school beyond 8^th grade, as it is the right of the parents to guide their children’s religious future and education.

Obviously missing the point of the suit, three federal district judges for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the suit, absurdly stating there was no evidence the families were compelled to change their religious beliefs or conduct.

At this point it appears there are five books sending a message that parents disagree with, particularly for younger students. The justices will decide if parents have opt-out rights under the First Amendment. It appears the conservative majority of SCOTUS is leaning toward the parents, suggesting an opt-out choice is just common sense.

Said Justice Kavanaugh, “I’m a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this. I’m surprised that this is the hill we’re going to die on, in terms of not respecting religious liberty.”

I don’t think I agree with Justice Kavanaugh, possibly the first time. It is time we nip this silly twaddle in the bud, but there again, I’m from Chebanse.  

Of course, Democrats and the school board are against the option of allowing the parents to opt out of the curriculum. The school board insists the books just expose children to diverse viewpoints. With that logic, porn and satanism should be added to the curriculum too.

Oral arguments thus far are attempting to weigh the line between exposure and coercion, which is forbidden under the First Amendment. During the oral arguments, the three liberal justices (Sotomayer, Kagan, and Jackson –  bless their little hearts) challenged the parents as in their view, an opt out program is a slippery slope that might encompass broader. Several other time-wasting ideas were brought up that further clouded the water.  A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

In case you’re wondering why I brought the Pope’s passing into this commentary, consider he leaned liberally, finding loopholes around long-standing Catholic dogma with subjects such as marriage, divorce, homosexuality, and a few others. The pope is the titular leader of 1.4 billion Catholics. How might he have been influenced by the courts opinion. Or how about the next pope?