A judge, apparently interpreting the terse words of the School Act, claims that this ban is not legal because it is based on religious belief and that this runs contrary to the School Act, which stipulates that schools must be run on a secular, non-religious basis. I am deeply disturbed by the news of this ruling. I believe the court's judgment reflects unhealthy fear and paranoia about the role of religion in public life. It embodies a rigid secularism that is intolerant of certain moral views simply because those views are supported by religious traditions. Consequently, I as a parent have the primary right and duty to educate my child, and it is wrong for public officials to decide arbitrarily what moral values my child is to learn.
Schools exist precisely to help parents raise children.
In a certain sense, schools are an auxiliary to parents. I agree with these words, not just because of who the speaker is, but because they express a fundamental and universal principle of truth and justice. But this is an inversion of the correct order and, as such, cannot be tolerated. To assume that the child belongs first and foremost to the state and that the state therefore has the first right and duty to decide how the child will be educated is, in fact, totalitarianism. From history, we know what the consequences of totalitarianism are.