Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. – The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The attempt to force a transgender ideology upon schools and governments is a violation of the First Amendment in three ways.
First, it is an attempt to establish a religion. Transgenderism is a belief that is not upheld by science. A person claims to be transgender by identification, which is an mental or emotional attachment to an idea. The person who claims to be a female, but is in fact a male, is denying the scientific fact of biology, genetics and DNA. Whatever they may “feel,” it does not make it a fact or true. I may feel like a 6-foot Chinese woman who is excellent at basketball. I may identify myself as that, but it does not make it true. It is a belief system, an ideology, and mental/emotional feeling. Since it is not based in the fact of biology, it is a belief system, and hence a religion. In addition, mutilating the body and taking hormones does not change the DNA or genes of biology; any more than cutting off one’s leg makes one a donkey.
Therefore, for the public school system or the state to impose such a belief system on the community, it is a violation of the establishment clause, and creates a religious test for employment.
Second, the attempt to force others to conform to some complex forms of “politically correct” speech, is a violation of the second clause by prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as third, suppressing the freedom of speech by refusing to allow people to speak correctly of scientific facts, but forces them to verbally uphold an ideology or religion.
The move to control people’s speech to fit an ideology is more than just an attempt to create respect; it is an attempt to enforce endorsement of a belief system. Therefore, it is a violation of the religious freedom of teachers, state workers, and the public at large; and it is not acceptable under the terms of the First Amendment.
It certainly is not a religion, there is no spiritual being or God involved. It is a “let people be” philosophy. What difference does it make to me if someone wants to live life as a female despite being born with male genitalia, or vice versa? It doesn’t hurt me, or keep me from living my life or pursuing happiness. Isn’t that what the Founders meant by “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”? Doesn’t bother me a bit. Oh, and btw, scientists have identified people born with six different male/female mixes…some male in one way and female in another. Rare mutations, sure, but nature produced them. Why should a psychological identity be any different? Live and let live. You simply do not have the right to dictate to others how to live any more than they have to dictate to you. That is what liberty is all about.
Billy, you apparently don’t know what is going on in the schools where they are attempting to indoctrinate elementary school children in this ideology over the religious objections of parents. So it is not a “live and let live” situation. More on that later.
First of all, you are mistaken about religion being defined by a belief in God, gods or spiritual beings. The Supreme Court has defined secular humanism as a religion in various rulings. The reasoning is that a belief system is a religion whether or not it acknowledges a spiritual world:
In the case of American Humanist Association v. United States “The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the decision read. It also ruled that humanism should be treated as “religion” for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits religious discrimination.
In Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court “found” secular humanism to be a religion. In footnote 11 it says: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”
In other words, a functional definition describes religion as “a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an Ultimate Reality. This Reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or nonpersonal, divine or not, and so forth, differing from religion to religion.” (Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 4.) Such a definition clearly encompasses the worldview of Secular Humanism.
As to the indoctrination of children and having boys go into girls’ locker rooms on the pretense of a confused gender, we have already cases of abuse.
If you want a preview of lawlessness, it is already too late. California is the nightmare.
While in California, Robert Kirk, the director of the music video, gave me a sneak peek at his comedy short film, Nightmare in Paradise. Robert’s hilarious movie is about a transgender who shows up for a job interview. The interviewer must handle the transgender with kid gloves and extreme caution to avoid breaking laws. Robert is a former prosecutor. The scary thing about his brilliant script is that it is based on existing California laws. Here is a link to watch Robert Kirk’s Nightmare in Paradise: https://youtu.be/lK2Mc6mLCCY
We have also had cases in Texas where under the guise of education they have had transvestites present in schools and have children put Monopoly money in their g strings. Subsequent investigations have found some of these presenters have records for pedophilia.
Indeed, where this indoctrination into an ideology has taken place, they are refusing to allow parents to opt-out of these curricula based upon religion objections, so it is definitely not a live-and-let-live situation. It is an ideological indoctrination:
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/education/2019/06/26/teaching-lgbtq-in-schools-can-nj-parents-opt-out/1549151001/ The law, as written, has no provision that allows for parents to opt out. “Our children should not be able to ‘opt-out'” she said in a statement.