Category: Parental Rights

Posted on

The “Christian Nationalism” Charge and the Return of an Old Heresy

[Audio script] "We have to draw the connection here, between what we are seeing in these crisis pregnancy centers, what we are seeing in other..um..Christian Nationalist policy imposition on ability for Trans individuals to receive health-care and gender-affirming care.  We see what is happening in our schools with the so-called Parents Bill of Rights and all of the ways in which LBGTBQ issues, like book-banning, and other issues across healthcare, across all the issues that deeply impact North Carolinians.  This agenda is front and center, and the majority party in this moment, is the one that is, are the architects of those impacts.  So we have to tell the truth about the ways in which all of the issues we are dealing with in the General Assembly, across Education, Health-Care and beyond are all tied to this central agenda of Christian Nationalism."

Recently, I watched the above press conference held by several female ministers and clergy leaders at North Carolina’s legislative building in Raleigh. During the event, one pastor argued that crisis pregnancy centers1 A crisis pregnancy center (CPC) is a place for people facing an unexpected pregnancy to get counseling and support. Many CPCs offer free services such as: pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, baby supplies, parenting classes, counseling or referrals. However, most CPCs are Pro-Life organizations, which is apparently for these ministers, problematic., restrictions on so-called “gender-affirming care,” parental rights legislation, curriculum transparency, and book policies are all connected expressions of a broader “Christian Nationalist agenda” affecting North Carolinians.

That’s what they say.

I disagree.

But about one thing they are certainly correct: these issues are connected.

Why the “Trans Issue” Matters

Some of my progressive Christian friends ask why I consider the transgender issue so important. Here is one example of why. And it has nothing to do with “Christian Nationalism,” as these clerics insist.

Feebly following Jesus’ lead, I increasingly reserve my sharpest criticism for religious leaders—especially ministers who appear to have bypassed the very first article of the Christian creed: belief in God the Creator. And, no doubt, several other articles as well, including the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Given what I know about the theological formation many ministers now receive in certain seminaries and divinity schools, it is an educated guess that some of these clergy do not actually believe the creeds they publicly recite every Sunday.

Just a hunch.

Yet they still claim to speak liberating “gospel truth” to power.

The False Gospel of Liberation from the Body

Now let me be clear: there is true freedom in Christ—from God our Creator. That is the freedom human beings were made for.

But part of the modern false-liberationist worldview—astonishingly embraced by some theologians, preachers, and denominations—is the idea that human beings can and should be liberated from their bodies, especially from the perceived “constraints” of bodily reality itself.

That is a lie.

In fact, it is a very old lie.

The Early Church Fathers regarded this way of thinking as a theological five-alarm fire. They fought vigorously to cast it into the Gehenna of theological discourse and history.

It was called Gnosticism. (You can read more about Gnosticism at this link.)

Unfortunately, despite their efforts, it always seems to be hangin’ ’round the house.

The New Gnosticism

Today’s Gnostics tell us that the body does not really matter—not ultimately, anyway.

They say it does not matter how sexual behavior is expressed, so long as it is called “love.”

They say that if a person possesses XY chromosomes, male reproductive anatomy, and produces the small gametes characteristic of the male sex—but internally identifies as female—then that person “really” is female in the truest sense.

And society, they insist, must affirm this inner identity above biological reality itself.

Not only affirm it, but increasingly enforce it—through language codes, institutional mandates, and legal pressures compelling others to participate in the fiction.

Bodies, after all, do not really matter, according to this new spiritualist vision.

Or, at least, not very much.

[Yoda voice: “Mary Baker Eddy disciples, they are.”]

And accordingly, they will support the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of minors in pursuit of these self-expressive and supposedly liberating ends.

All of this, mind you, is done in the name of compassion, liberation, and “gospel truth.”

Creation, Resurrection, and Reality

But as someone who believes in God the Creator—the One who raised the dead body of Jesus into new creation life—I fail to see the Ordo Amoris in any of this.

Ordo amoris is a Latin phrase meaning “the order of loves.” In Christian theology—especially in Augustine of Hippo and later thinkers—it refers to the proper ordering of our loves, desires, and affections according to God’s created design and moral reality.

The basic idea is this:

Sin is not merely loving bad things, but loving good things in the wrong order.

So, for example:

* Loving pleasure more than truth,
* Self more than God,
* Desire more than reality,
* Or autonomy more than creation itself,

would all represent a disordered ordo amoris.

By contrast, a rightly ordered life loves God our Creator first and then loves all other things—people, body, sex, family, nation, freedom, possessions—in their proper place and proportion.

I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ, especially our leaders, will come to the same conclusion.

Christians cannot surrender the goodness of creation without eventually surrendering Christianity itself.

The biblical faith is not a religion of escape from the body. It is a religion of incarnation, resurrection, and new creation.

Non-Christians may continue drifting into this technologically assisted Gnosticism. But the Church must not.

We must remain firmly rooted in God’s created order and design, come what may.

Because societies built upon lies about human nature eventually collapse.

And denominations built upon those same lies eventually die as well.

+++

Love God First, Then Your Neighbor

Companion Post

Why Puberty Blockers Are Bad Medicine: Form, Telos, and the Abuse of Consent
Posted on

California Court Affirms Parents, Truth, and the Moral Duty to Protect Children

A federal court in California has issued a decisive ruling that cuts through the fog of ideology and reasserts a truth as old as Scripture itself: parents are not optional in the lives of their children. In striking down “gender secrecy” policies in public schools, Judge Roger Benitez affirmed that neither the state nor school bureaucracies have the moral or constitutional authority to hide a child’s struggles from those entrusted by God with their care.

This case also exposes a troubling political and moral contradiction. Rob Bonta, California’s Attorney General—widely seen as positioning himself for a future gubernatorial run—defended these secrecy policies by arguing that parents must be excluded “for the child’s protection.”

The court rejected this premise outright, noting that it presumes parents are the primary threat to their own children.

From a Christian perspective, this logic is deeply inverted. Scripture consistently affirms parents as the primary moral guardians of children, not the state. A government that trains children to withhold intimate truths from their parents is not practicing compassion; it is undermining trust at the most foundational human level.

The irony here is impossible to miss. Progressives rightly condemned the Catholic Church for decades for fostering cultures of secrecy that isolated children from parental protection and allowed harm to flourish. Yet many of those same voices now defend gender secrecy in public schools—policies that likewise instruct children to conceal sensitive information from their parents. Secrecy was once understood as a danger. Now it is celebrated—so long as it serves an ideological end.

Judge Benitez ordered California to include the following statement in all relevant materials:

Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.

This ruling restores moral clarity. Care for children and respect for parents rise or fall together. When secrecy ends, truth—and genuine protection—can finally begin.  

Companion Post:

Solution: Make Parents Opt-IN to LGBTQ+ Content at School

+++

Posted on

Solution: Make Parents Opt-IN to LGBTQ+ Content at School

This Tuesday’s Supreme Court Case:

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of religious parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, are standing up for something pretty basic: the right to raise their children according to their faith. But the school district isn’t making that easy. It introduced storybooks and lessons about gender identity and sexuality to elementary school kids—without even telling parents ahead of time, and without offering any way to opt out.

That’s a problem. These families aren’t trying to stir up trouble—they’re simply asking to be informed and allowed to make decisions that line up with their religious convictions. This is about the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, especially when it comes to moral and spiritual formation.

The parents point to Wisconsin v. Yoder, where the Supreme Court said Amish families had a right to pull their kids from school to preserve their religious way of life. The principle is the same here. Just like in Yoder, these parents aren’t trying to shut down education—they’re asking the state to respect their religious boundaries.

Even more, the school’s policy isn’t neutral. It selectively targets families of faith by refusing to accommodate them. That’s exactly the kind of government overreach the Supreme Court rejected in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. When the government targets religion—or refuses to treat religious people with equal dignity—it’s supposed to face the highest level of scrutiny. And this policy doesn’t come close to meeting that standard.

During the Supreme Court oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, it was revealed that Montgomery County Public Schools introduced concepts such as “preferred pronouns” and the idea that a child’s gender or sex is “assigned at birth” to young students, including those aged 4 to 6.

Eric Baxter, the attorney representing the parents, stated that the school district mandated instruction teaching that “doctors guessed at their sex when they were born” and that disagreeing with this notion is considered “hurtful and unfair.” 

Additionally, one of the books included in the curriculum, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, discusses a child’s experience with gender identity and pronoun preferences. 

The parents argue that such instruction conflicts with their religious beliefs and that they should have the right to opt their children out of these lessons..

Let’s be clear: these parents aren’t asking to ban books or rewrite the curriculum. They’re asking for a simple, commonsense solution—just give them a heads-up, and let them opt out when necessary. That’s not unreasonable. In fact, it’s the least the school could do to respect the diversity it claims to celebrate.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22, 2025, and a decision is expected this summer. At stake is a principle as old as the Constitution: parents, not bureaucrats, have the right to shape their children’s moral and spiritual education. Let’s hope the Court gets it right.

But wait! I’ve got a simpler solution: OPT-IN

Before any of these controversial LGBTQ ‘lessons’ are taught: Make Parents Opt Their Kids IN to LGBTQ++ content. Then for those who do, you can have a special time for their instruction. The problem, of course, is a lot of this controversial content has been smuggled into math, science, reading & writing curriculum. That needs to stop.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will side with the parents here, but it’s hard to say how the justices will ultimately rule. Still, it really shouldn’t even come down to a court case. Parents shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to opt their kids out of content they find inappropriate—especially when it comes to sensitive, sexual, or ideological material. Honestly, a lot of this content shouldn’t be in schools to begin with.

If schools are going to insist on including materials about gender identity, preferred pronouns, and LGBTQ themes—especially for very young kids—then it should be an OPT-IN system, not opt-out. In other words, parents who want their children to engage with that kind of material should be the ones who take action, not the other way around. Most parents, especially those with preschoolers or children with special needs (like the ones in this case), aren’t okay with their kids being exposed to content that doesn’t match their age or their family’s beliefs.

And let’s be honest—if schools did switch to an opt-in model, you’d probably find that very few parents would sign their kids up for this. That would calm down the outrage and allow the handful of families who do want that kind of instruction to have it—maybe in a separate elective or even as an after-school program.

Better yet, make it a rule that anytime a teacher or librarian wants to introduce content dealing with sex, gender, or identity, they have to get direct, written permission from parents first. Put the responsibility where it belongs: on the schools and educators. Let them explain exactly what’s being taught and why they think it’s helpful. That’s the kind of transparency parents deserve.

If you agree with this OPT-IN Solution, please share this post with others. Thanks.

A Longer Term Solution is Universal School Choice

As of April 2025, 14 U.S. states have enacted universal school choice programs, allowing all or nearly all K–12 students to access public funds for private education expenses, including tuition, homeschooling, and other approved costs. Here’s an overview of these states and their programs:

States with Universal School Choice Programs

  1. Arizona
    Pioneered universal school choice in 2022 with its Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, offering funds to all students regardless of income or background.
  2. Florida
    Expanded its Family Empowerment Scholarship in 2023 to include universal eligibility, allowing all students to apply for private school funding.
  3. West Virginia
    Implemented the Hope Scholarship Program in 2021, providing ESAs to all students, making it one of the earliest adopters of universal school choice.
  4. Iowa
    Launched the Students First Act in 2023, establishing ESAs for all students to attend private schools.
  5. Arkansas
    Passed the LEARNS Act in 2023, creating a universal ESA program for students statewide.
  6. Utah
    Enacted H.B. 215 in 2023, establishing a universal ESA program open to all students, regardless of income or disability status.
  7. Indiana
    Expanded its Choice Scholarship Program in 2023 to remove income limits, effectively making it a universal voucher program.
  8. North Carolina
    Approved legislation in 2023 to make its Opportunity Scholarship Program universally available to all K–12 students.
  9. Ohio
    Expanded its EdChoice Scholarship Program in 2023 to allow all students to apply, regardless of income or school performance.
  10. Oklahoma
    Implemented the Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit in 2023, providing universal access to private school funding through tax credits.
  11. South Carolina
    Passed legislation in 2023 to establish a universal ESA program, offering funds to all students for private education expenses.
  12. Tennessee
    In January 2025, enacted the Education Freedom Act, creating a universal ESA program that provides families with $7,000 per student for tuition and other educational expenses.
  13. Idaho
    In early 2025, approved the Idaho Parental Tax Credit, offering families up to $5,000 per child for private educational expenses, marking the state’s first private school choice program.
  14. Wyoming
    Passed the Wyoming Freedom Scholarship Act in 2025, establishing a universal ESA program providing families with $7,000 per student for education-related expenses.

States with Recent or Pending Universal School Choice Legislation

  • Texas
    In April 2025, Texas lawmakers approved a $1 billion education bill establishing a private school voucher program, allowing families to use public funds for private school tuition, homeschooling, or virtual learning. The program is expected to serve up to 90,000 students in its first year, with potential expansion in the future.  
  • New Hampshire
    Legislation is advancing to remove income limits from the state’s Education Freedom Account program, potentially making it universally accessible.  
  • Missouri
    House Bill 711, proposing a voluntary open enrollment program and universal ESA eligibility, has passed the House and is under consideration in the Senate.  

These developments reflect a significant shift in education policy, with a growing number of states embracing universal school choice to provide families with more educational options.

At a minimum parents need to require local schools and school boards to support OPT-IN before any LGBTQ+ content is presented. Parents can then choose what they prefer for their young kids.

[Sources: Becket Legal Defense Fund & Supreme Court Oral Arguments]

+++

Parents: Take Charge!